initial commit of ebook 32282HEADmain

70 files changed, 6193 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/.gitattributes b/.gitattributes
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..6833f05
--- /dev/null
+++ b/.gitattributes
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+* text=auto
+*.txt text
+*.md text
diff --git a/32282-8.txt b/32282-8.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..5bd8591
--- /dev/null
+++ b/32282-8.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,2019 @@
+The Project Gutenberg EBook of Elevator Systems of the Eiffel Tower, 1889, by 
+Robert M. Vogel
+
+This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with
+almost no restrictions whatsoever.  You may copy it, give it away or
+re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included
+with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org
+
+
+Title: Elevator Systems of the Eiffel Tower, 1889
+
+Author: Robert M. Vogel
+
+Release Date: May 7, 2010 [EBook #32282]
+
+Language: English
+
+Character set encoding: ISO-8859-1
+
+*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK ELEVATOR SYSTEMS ***
+
+
+
+
+Produced by Chris Curnow, Joseph Cooper and the Online
+Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+  CONTRIBUTIONS FROM
+  THE MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY:
+  PAPER 19
+
+
+  ELEVATOR SYSTEMS
+  OF THE EIFFEL TOWER, 1889
+
+  _Robert M. Vogel_
+
+
+  PREPARATORY WORK FOR THE TOWER             4
+
+  THE TOWER'S STRUCTURAL RATIONALE           5
+
+  ELEVATOR DEVELOPMENT BEFORE THE TOWER      6
+
+  THE TOWER'S ELEVATORS                     20
+
+  EPILOGUE                                  37
+
+
+
+
+ELEVATOR SYSTEMS of the EIFFEL TOWER, 1889
+
+By Robert M. Vogel
+
+     _This article traces the evolution of the powered passenger elevator
+     from its initial development in the mid-19th century to the
+     installation of the three separate elevator systems in the Eiffel
+     Tower in 1889. The design of the Tower's elevators involved problems
+     of capacity, length of rise, and safety far greater than any
+     previously encountered in the field; and the equipment that resulted
+     was the first capable of meeting the conditions of vertical
+     transportation found in the just emerging skyscraper._
+
+     THE AUTHOR: _Robert M. Vogel is associate curator of mechanical and
+     civil engineering, United States National Museum, Smithsonian
+     Institution._
+
+
+The 1,000-foot tower that formed the focal point and central feature of
+the Universal Exposition of 1889 at Paris has become one of the best known
+of man's works. It was among the most outstanding technological
+achievements of an age which was itself remarkable for such achievements.
+
+Second to the interest shown in the tower's structural aspects was the
+interest in its mechanical organs. Of these, the most exceptional were the
+three separate elevator systems by which the upper levels were made
+accessible to the Exposition visitors. The design of these systems
+involved problems far greater than had been encountered in previous
+elevator work anywhere in the world. The basis of these difficulties was
+the amplification of the two conditions that were the normal determinants
+in elevator design--passenger capacity and height of rise. In addition,
+there was the problem, totally new, of fitting elevator shafts to the
+curvature of the Tower's legs. The study of the various solutions to these
+problems presents a concise view of the capabilities of the elevator art
+just prior to the beginning of the most recent phase of its development,
+marked by the entry of electricity into the field.
+
+The great confidence of the Tower's builder in his own engineering ability
+can be fully appreciated, however, only when notice is taken of one
+exceptional way in which the project differed from works of earlier
+periods as well as from contemporary ones. In almost every case, these
+other works had evolved, in a natural and progressive way, from a
+fundamental concept firmly based upon precedent. This was true of such
+notable structures of the time as the Brooklyn Bridge and, to a lesser
+extent, the Forth Bridge. For the design of his tower, there was virtually
+no experience in structural history from which Eiffel could draw other
+than a series of high piers that his own firm had designed earlier for
+railway bridges. It was these designs that led Eiffel to consider the
+practicality of iron structures of extreme height.
+
+
+[Illustration: Figure 1.--The Eiffel Tower at the time of the Universal
+Exposition of 1889 at Paris. (From _La Nature_, June 29, 1889, vol. 17, p.
+73.)]
+
+[Illustration: Figure 2.--Gustave Eiffel (1832-1923). (From Gustave
+Eiffel, _La Tour de Trois Cents Mètres_, Paris, 1900, frontispiece.)]
+
+
+There was, it is true, some inspiration to be found in the paper projects
+of several earlier designers--themselves inspired by that compulsion which
+throughout history seems to have driven men to attempt the erection of
+magnificently high structures.
+
+One such inspiration was a proposal made in 1832 by the celebrated but
+eccentric Welsh engineer Richard Trevithick to erect a 1,000-foot,
+conical, cast-iron tower (fig. 3) to celebrate the passing of the Reform
+Bill. Of particular interest in light of the present discussion was
+Trevithick's plan to raise visitors to the summit on a piston, driven
+upward within the structure's hollow central tube by compressed air. It
+probably is fortunate for Trevithick's reputation that his plan died
+shortly after this and the project was forgotten.
+
+One project of genuine promise was a tower proposed by the eminent
+American engineering firm of Clarke, Reeves & Company to be erected at the
+Centennial Exhibition at Philadelphia in 1876. At the time, this firm was
+perhaps the leading designer and erector of iron structures in the United
+States, having executed such works as the Girard Avenue Bridge over the
+Schuylkill at Fairmount Park, and most of New York's early elevated
+railway system. The company's proposal (fig. 4) for a 1,000-foot shaft of
+wrought-iron columns braced by a continuous web of diagonals was based
+upon sound theoretical knowledge and practical experience. Nevertheless,
+the natural hesitation that the fair's sponsors apparently felt in the
+face of so heroic a scheme could not be overcome, and this project also
+remained a vision.
+
+
+
+
+Preparatory Work for the Tower
+
+
+In the year 1885, the Eiffel firm, which also had an extensive background
+of experience in structural engineering, undertook a series of
+investigations of tall metallic piers based upon its recent experiences
+with several lofty railway viaducts and bridges. The most spectacular of
+these was the famous Garabit Viaduct (1880-1884), which carries a railroad
+some 400 feet above the valley of the Truyere in southern France. While
+the 200-foot height of the viaduct's two greatest piers was not startling
+even at that period, the studies proved that piers of far greater height
+were entirely feasible in iron construction. This led to the design of a
+395-foot pier, which, although never incorporated into a bridge, may be
+said to have been the direct basis for the Eiffel Tower.
+
+Preliminary studies for a 300-meter tower were made with the 1889 fair
+immediately in mind. With an assurance born of positive knowledge, Eiffel
+in June of 1886 approached the Exposition commissioners with the project.
+There can be no doubt that only the singular respect with which Eiffel was
+regarded not only by his profession but by the entire nation motivated the
+Commission to approve a plan which, in the hands of a figure of less
+stature, would have been considered grossly impractical.
+
+Between this time and commencement of the Tower's construction at the end
+of January 1887, there arose one of the most persistently annoying of the
+numerous difficulties, both structural and social, which confronted Eiffel
+as the project advanced. In the wake of the initial enthusiasm--on the
+part of the fair's Commission inspired by the desire to create a monument
+to French technological achievement, and on the part of the majority of
+Frenchmen by the stirring of their imagination at the magnitude of the
+structure--there grew a rising movement of disfavor. The nucleus was, not
+surprisingly, formed mainly of the intelligentsia, but objections were
+made by prominent Frenchmen in all walks of life. The most interesting
+point to be noted in a retrospection of this often violent opposition was
+that, although the Tower's every aspect was attacked, there was remarkably
+little criticism of its structural feasibility, either by the engineering
+profession or, as seems traditionally to be the case with bold and
+unprecedented undertakings, by large numbers of the technically uninformed
+laity. True, there was an undercurrent of what might be characterized as
+unease by many property owners in the structure's shadow, but the most
+obstinate element of resistance was that which deplored the Tower as a
+mechanistic intrusion upon the architectural and natural beauties of
+Paris. This resistance voiced its fury in a flood of special newspaper
+editions, petitions, and manifestos signed by such lights of the fine and
+literary arts as De Maupassant, Gounod, Dumas _fils_, and others. The
+eloquence of one article, which appeared in several Paris papers in
+February 1887, was typical:
+
+     We protest in the name of French taste and the national art culture
+     against the erection of a staggering Tower, like a gigantic kitchen
+     chimney dominating Paris, eclipsing by its barbarous mass Notre Dame,
+     the Sainte-Chapelle, the tower of St. Jacques, the Dôme des
+     Invalides, the Arc de Triomphe, humiliating these monuments by an act
+     of madness.[1]
+
+Further, a prediction was made that the entire city would become
+dishonored by the odious shadow of the odious column of bolted sheet iron.
+
+It is impossible to determine what influence these outcries might have had
+on the project had they been organized sooner. But inasmuch as the
+Commission had, in November 1886, provided 1,500,000 francs for its
+commencement, the work had been fairly launched by the time the
+protestations became loud enough to threaten and they were ineffectual.
+
+Upon completion, many of the most vigorous protestants became as vigorous
+in their praise of the Tower, but a hard core of critics continued for
+several years to circulate petitions advocating its demolition by the
+government. One of these critics, it was said--probably apocryphally--took
+an office on the first platform, that being the only place in Paris from
+which the Tower could not be seen.
+
+
+[Illustration: Figure 3.--Trevithick's proposed cast-iron tower (1832)
+would have been 1,000 feet high, 100 feet in diameter at the base, 12 feet
+at the top, and surmounted by a colossal statue. (From F. Dye, _Popular
+Engineering_, London, 1895, p. 205.)]
+
+
+
+
+The Tower's Structural Rationale
+
+
+During the previously mentioned studies of high piers undertaken by the
+Eiffel firm, it was established that as the base width of these piers
+increased in proportion to their height, the diagonal bracing connecting
+the vertical members, necessary for rigidity, became so long as to be
+subject to high flexural stresses from wind and columnar loading. To
+resist these stresses, the bracing required extremely large sections which
+greatly increased the surface of the structure exposed to the wind, and
+was, moreover, decidedly uneconomical. To overcome this difficulty, the
+principle which became the basic design concept of the Tower was
+developed.
+
+The material which would otherwise have been used for the continuous
+lattice of diagonal bracing was concentrated in the four corner columns of
+the Tower, and these verticals were connected only at two widely
+separated points by the deep bands of trussing which formed the first and
+second platforms. A slight curvature inward was given to the main piers to
+further widen the base and increase the stability of the structure. At a
+point slightly above the second platform, the four members converged to
+the extent that conventional bracing became more economical, and they were
+joined.
+
+
+[Illustration: Figure 4.--The proposed 1,000-foot iron tower designed by
+Clarke, Reeves & Co. for the Centennial Exhibition of 1876 at
+Philadelphia. (From _Scientific American_, Jan. 24, 1874, vol. 30, p.
+47.)]
+
+
+That this theory was successful not only practically, but visually, is
+evident from the resulting work. The curve of the legs and the openings
+beneath the two lower platforms are primarily responsible for the Tower's
+graceful beauty as well as for its structural soundness.
+
+The design of the Tower was not actually the work of Eiffel himself but of
+two of his chief engineers, Emile Nouguier (1840-?) and Maurice Koechlin
+(1856-1946)--the men who had conducted the high pier studies--and the
+architect Stéphen Sauvestre (1847-?).
+
+In the planning of the foundations, extreme care was used to ensure
+adequate footing, but in spite of the Tower's light weight in proportion
+to its bulk, and the low earth pressure it exerted, uneven pier settlement
+with resultant leaning of the Tower was considered a dangerous
+possibility.[2] To compensate for this eventuality, a device was used
+whose ingenious directness justifies a brief description. In the base of
+each of the 16 columns forming the four main legs was incorporated an
+opening into which an 800-ton hydraulic press could be placed, capable of
+raising the member slightly. A thin steel shim could then be inserted to
+make the necessary correction (fig. 5). The system was used only during
+construction to overcome minor erection discrepancies.
+
+In order to appreciate fully the problem which confronted the Tower's
+designers and sponsors when they turned to the problem of making its
+observation areas accessible to the fair's visitors, it is first necessary
+to investigate briefly the contemporary state of elevator art.
+
+
+
+
+Elevator Development before the Tower
+
+
+While power-driven hoists and elevators in many forms had been used since
+the early years of the 19th century, the ever-present possibility of
+breakage of the hoisting rope restricted their use almost entirely to the
+handling of goods in mills and warehouses.[3] Not until the invention of a
+device which would positively prevent this was there much basis for work
+on other elements of the system. The first workable mechanism to prevent
+the car from dropping to the bottom of the hoistway in event of rope
+failure was the product of Elisha G. Otis (1811-1861), a mechanic of
+Yonkers, New York. The invention was made more or less as a matter of
+course along with the other machinery for a new mattress factory of which
+Otis was master mechanic.
+
+
+[Illustration: Figure 5.--Correcting erection discrepancies by raising
+pier member--with hydraulic press and hand pump--and inserting shims.
+(From _La Nature_, Feb. 18, 1888, vol. 16, p. 184.)]
+
+[Illustration: Figure 6.--The promenade beneath the Eiffel Tower, 1889.
+(From _La Nature_, Nov. 30, 1889, vol. 17, p. 425.)]
+
+[Illustration: Figure 7.--Teagle elevator in an English mill about 1845.
+Power was taken from the line shafting. (From _Pictorial Gallery of Arts_,
+Volume of Useful Arts, London, n.d. [ca. 1845].)]
+
+
+The importance of this invention soon became evident to Otis, and he
+introduced his device to the public three years later during the second
+season of the New York Crystal Palace Exhibition, in 1854. Here he would
+demonstrate dramatically the perfect safety of his elevator by cutting the
+hoisting rope of a suspended platform on which he himself stood, uttering
+the immortal words which have come to be inseparably associated with the
+history of the elevator--"All safe, gentlemen!"[4]
+
+The invention achieved popularity slowly, but did find increasing favor in
+manufactories throughout the eastern United States. The significance of
+Otis' early work in this field lay strictly in the safety features of his
+elevators rather than in the hoisting equipment. His earliest systems were
+operated by machinery similar to that of the teagle elevator in which the
+hoisting drum was driven from the mill shafting by simple fast and loose
+pulleys with crossed and straight belts to raise, lower, and stop. This
+scheme, already common at the time, was itself a direct improvement on the
+ancient hand-powered drum hoist.
+
+The first complete elevator machine in the United States, constructed in
+1855, was a complex and inefficient contrivance built around an
+oscillating-cylinder steam engine. The advantages of an elevator system
+independent of the mill drive quickly became apparent, and by 1860
+improved steam elevator machines were being produced in some quantity, but
+almost exclusively for freight service. It is not clear when the first
+elevator was installed explicitly for passenger service, but it was
+probably in 1857, when Otis placed one in a store on Broadway at Broome
+Street in New York.
+
+In the decade following the Civil War, tall buildings had just begun to
+emerge; and, although the skylines of the world's great cities were still
+dominated by church spires, there was increasing activity in the
+development of elevator apparatus adapted to the transportation of people
+as well as of merchandise. Operators of hotels and stores gradually became
+aware of the commercial advantages to be gained by elevating their patrons
+even one or two floors above the ground, by machinery. The steam engine
+formed the foundation of the early elevator industry, but as building
+heights increased it was gradually replaced by hydraulic, and ultimately
+by electrical, systems.
+
+
+THE STEAM ELEVATOR
+
+The progression from an elevator machine powered by the line shafting of a
+mill to one in which the power source was independent would appear a
+simple and direct one. Nevertheless, it was about 40 years after the
+introduction of the powered elevator before it became common to couple
+elevator machines directly to separate engines. The multiple belt and
+pulley transmission system was at first retained, but it soon became
+evident that a more satisfactory service resulted from stopping and
+reversing the engine itself, using a single fixed belt to connect the
+engine and winding mechanism. Interestingly, the same pattern was followed
+40 years later when the first attempts were made to apply the electric
+motor to elevator drive.
+
+
+[Illustration: Figure 8.--In the typical steam elevator machine two
+vertical cylinders were situated either above or below the crankshaft, and
+a small pulley was keyed to the crankshaft. In a light-duty machine, the
+power was transmitted by flatbelt from the small pulley to a larger one
+mounted directly on the drum. In heavy-duty machines, spur gearing was
+interposed between the large secondary pulley and the winding drum. (Photo
+courtesy of Otis Elevator Company.)]
+
+[Illustration: Figure 9.--Several manufacturers built steam machines in
+which a gear on the drum shaft meshed directly with a worm on the
+crankshaft. This arrangement eliminated the belt, and, since the drum
+could not drive the engine through the worm gearing, no brake was
+necessary for holding the load. (Courtesy of Otis Elevator Company.)]
+
+
+By 1870 the steam elevator machine had attained its ultimate form, which,
+except for a number of minor refinements, was to remain unchanged until
+the type became completely obsolete toward the end of the century.
+
+By the last quarter of the century, a continuous series of improvements in
+the valving, control systems, and safety features of the steam machine had
+made possible an elevator able to compete with the subsequently appearing
+hydraulic systems for freight and low-rise passenger service insofar as
+smoothness, control, and lifting power were concerned. However, steam
+machinery began to fail in this competition as the increasing height of
+buildings rapidly extended the demands of speed and length of rise.
+
+The limitation in rise constituted the most serious shortcoming of the
+steam elevator (figs. 8-10), an inherent defect that did not exist in the
+various hydraulic systems.
+
+
+[Illustration: Figure 10.--Components of the steam passenger elevator at
+the time of its peak development and use (1876). (From _The First One
+Hundred Years_, Otis Elevator Company, 1953.)]
+
+
+Since the only practical way in which the power of a steam engine could be
+applied to the haulage of elevator cables was through a rotational system,
+the cables invariably were wound on a drum. The travel or rise of the car
+was therefore limited by the cable capacity of the winding drum. As
+building heights increased, drums became necessarily longer and larger
+until they grew so cumbersome as to impose a serious limitation upon
+further upward growth. A drum machine rarely could be used for a lift of
+more than 150 feet.[5]
+
+Another organic difficulty existing in drum machines was the dangerous
+possibility of the car--or the counterweight, whose cables often wound on
+the drum--being drawn past the normal top limit and into the upper
+supporting works. Only safety stops could prevent such an occurrence if
+the operator failed to stop the car at the top or bottom of the shaft, and
+even these were not always effective. Hydraulic machines were not
+susceptible to this danger, the piston or plunger being arrested by the
+ends of the cylinder at the extremes of travel.
+
+
+THE HYDRAULIC ELEVATOR
+
+The rope-geared hydraulic elevator, which was eventually to become known
+as the "standard of the industry," is generally thought to have evolved
+directly from an invention of the English engineer Sir William Armstrong
+(1810-1900) of ordnance fame. In 1846 he developed a water-powered crane,
+utilizing the hydraulic head available from a reservoir on a hill 200 feet
+above.
+
+The system was not basically different from the simple hydraulic press so
+well known at the time. Water, admitted to a horizontal cylinder,
+displaced a piston and rod to which a sheave was attached. Around the
+sheave passed a loop of chain, one end of which was fixed, the other
+running over guide sheaves and terminating at the crane arm with a lifting
+hook. As the piston was pressed into the cylinder, the free end of the
+chain was drawn up at triple the piston speed, raising the load. The
+effect was simply that of a 3-to-1 tackle, with the effort and load
+elements reversed. Simple valves controlled admission and exhaust of the
+water. (See fig. 11.)
+
+
+[Illustration: Figure 11.--Armstrong's hydraulic crane. The main cylinder
+was inclined, permitting gravity to assist in overhauling the hook. The
+small cylinder rotated the crane. (From John H. Jallings, _Elevators_,
+Chicago, 1916, p. 82.)]
+
+
+The success of this system initiated a sizable industry in England, and
+the hydraulic crane, with many modifications, was in common use there for
+many years. Such cranes were introduced in the United States in about 1867
+but never became popular; they did, however, have a profound influence on
+the elevator art, forming the basis of the third generic type to achieve
+widespread use in this country.
+
+The ease of translation from the Armstrong crane to an elevator system
+could hardly have been more evident, only two alterations of consequence
+being necessary in the passage. A guided platform or car was substituted
+for the hook; and the control valves were connected to a stationary
+endless rope that was accessible to an operator on the car.
+
+The rope-geared hydraulic system (fig. 13) appeared in mature form in
+about 1876. However, before it had become the "standard elevator" through
+a process of refinement, another system was introduced which merits notice
+if for no other reason than that its popularity for some years seems
+remarkable in view of its preposterously unsafe design. Patented by Cyrus
+W. Baldwin of Boston in January 1870, this system was termed the
+Hydro-Atmospheric Elevator, but more commonly known as the water-balance
+elevator (fig. 12). It employed water not under pressure but simply as
+mass under the influence of gravity. The elevator car's supporting cables
+ran over sheaves at the top of the shaft to a large iron bucket, which
+traveled in a closed tube or well adjacent to and the same length as the
+shaft. To raise the car, the operator caused a valve to open, filling the
+bucket with water from a roof tank. When the weight of water was
+sufficient to overbalance the loaded car, the bucket descended, raising
+the car. On its ascent the car was stopped at intermediate floors by a
+strong brake that gripped the guides. Upon reaching the top, the operator
+was able to open a valve in the bucket, now at the bottom of its travel,
+and discharge its contents into a basement tank, to be pumped back to the
+roof. No longer counterbalanced, the car could descend, its speed
+controlled solely by the brake.
+
+The great popularity of this novel system apparently was due to its smooth
+operation, high speed, simplicity, and economy of operation. Managed by a
+skillful operator, it was capable of speeds far greater than other
+systems could then achieve--up to a frightening 1,800 feet per minute.[6]
+
+
+[Illustration: Figure 12.--Final development of the Baldwin-Hale water
+balance elevator, 1873. The brake, kept applied by powerful springs, was
+released only by steady pressure on a lever. There were two additional
+controls--the continuous rope that opened the cistern valve to fill the
+bucket, and a second lever to open the valve of the bucket to empty it.
+(From _United States Railroad and Mining Register_, Apr. 12, 1873, vol.
+17, p. 3.)]
+
+
+In addition to the element of potential danger from careless operation or
+failure of the brake, the Baldwin system was extremely expensive to
+install as a result of the second shaft, which of course was required to
+be more or less watertight.
+
+Much of the water-balance elevator's development and refinement was done
+by William E. Hale of Chicago, who also made most of the installations.
+The system has, therefore, come to bear his name more commonly than
+Baldwin's.
+
+The popularity of the water-balance system waned after only a few years,
+being eclipsed by more rational systems. Hale eventually abandoned it and
+became the western agent for Otis--by this time prominent in the
+field--and subsequently was influential in development of the hydraulic
+elevator.
+
+The rope-geared system of hydraulic elevator operation was so basically
+simple that by 1880 it had been embraced by virtually all manufacturers.
+However, for years most builders continued to maintain a line of steam and
+belt driven machines for freight service. Inspired by the rapid increase
+of taller and taller buildings, there was a concentrated effort,
+heightened by severe competition, to refine the basic system.
+
+
+[Illustration: Figure 13.--Vertical cylinder, rope-geared hydraulic
+elevator with 2:1 gear ratio and rope control (about 1880). For higher
+rises and speeds, ratios of up to 10:1 were used, and the endless rope was
+replaced by a lever. (Courtesy of Otis Elevator Company.)]
+
+
+By the late 1880's a vast number of improvements in detail had appeared,
+and this form of elevator was considered to be almost without defect. It
+was safe. Absence of a drum enabled the car to be carried by a number of
+cables rather than by one or two, and rendered overtravel impossible. It
+was fast. Control devices had received probably the most attention by
+engineers and were as perfect and sensitive as was possible with
+mechanical means. Cars with lever control could be run at the high speeds
+required for high buildings, yet they could be stopped with a smoothness
+and precision unattainable earlier with systems in which the valves were
+controlled by an endless rope, worked by the operator. It was almost
+completely silent, and when the cylinder was placed vertically in a well
+near the shaft, practically no valuable floor space was occupied. But most
+important, the length of rise was unlimited because no drum was used. As
+greater rises were required, the multiplication of the ropes and sheaves
+was simply increased, raising the piston-car travel ratio and permitting
+the cylinder to remain of manageable length. The ratio was often as high
+as 10 or 12 to 1, the car moving 10 or 12 feet to the piston's 1.
+
+In addition to its principal advantages, the hydraulic elevator could be
+operated directly from municipal water mains in the many cities where
+there was sufficient pressure, thus eliminating a large investment in
+tanks, pumps and boilers (fig. 14).
+
+By far the greatest development in this specialized branch of mechanical
+engineering occurred in the United States. The comparative position of
+American practice, which will be demonstrated farther on, is indicated by
+the fact that Otis Brothers and other large elevator concerns in the
+United States were able to establish offices in many of the major cities
+of Europe and compete very successfully with local firms in spite of the
+higher costs due to shipment. This also demonstrates the extent of error
+in the oft-heard statement that the skyscraper was the direct result of
+the elevator's invention. There is no question that continued elevator
+improvement was an essential factor in the rapid increase of building
+heights. However, consideration of the situation in European cities, where
+buildings of over 10 stories were (and still are) rare in spite of the
+availability of similar elevator techniques, points to the fundamental
+matter of tradition. The European city simply did not develop with the
+lack of judicial restraint which characterized metropolitan growth in the
+United States. The American tendency to confine mercantile activity to the
+smallest possible area resulted in excessive land values, which drove
+buildings skyward. The elevator followed, or, at most, kept pace with,
+the development of higher buildings.
+
+
+[Illustration: Figure 14.--In the various hydraulic systems, a pump was
+required if pressure from water mains was insufficient to operate the
+elevator directly. There was either a gravity tank on the roof or a
+pressure tank in the basement. (From Thomas E. Brown, Jr., "The American
+Passenger Elevator," _Engineering Magazine_ (New York), June 1893, vol. 5,
+p. 340.)]
+
+
+European elevator development--notwithstanding the number of American
+rope-geared hydraulic machines sold in Europe in the 10 years or so
+preceding the Paris fair of 1889--was confined mainly to variations on the
+direct plunger type, which was first used in English factories in the
+1830's. The plunger elevator (fig. 16), an even closer derivative of the
+hydraulic press than Armstrong's crane, was nothing more than a platform
+on the upper end of a vertical plunger that rose from a cylinder as water
+was forced in.
+
+There were two reasons for this European practice. The first and most
+apparent was the rarity of tall buildings. The drilling of a well to
+receive the cylinder was thus a matter of little difficulty. This well had
+to be equivalent in depth to the elevator rise. The second reason was an
+innate European distrust of cable-hung elevator systems in any form, an
+attitude that will be discussed more fully farther on.
+
+
+THE ELECTRIC ELEVATOR
+
+At the time the Eiffel Tower elevators were under consideration, water
+under pressure was, from a practical standpoint, the only agent capable of
+fulfilling the power and control requirements of this particularly severe
+service. Steam, as previously mentioned, had already been found wanting in
+several respects. Electricity, on the other hand, seemed to hold promise
+for almost every field of human endeavor. By 1888 the electric motor had
+behind it a 10- or 15-year history of active development. Frank J. Sprague
+had already placed in successful operation a sizable electric trolley-car
+system, and was manufacturing motors of up to 20 horsepower in commercial
+quantity. Lighting generators were being produced in sizes far greater.
+There were, nevertheless, many obstacles preventing the translation of
+this progress into machinery capable of hauling large groups of people a
+vertical distance of 1,000 feet with unquestionable dependability.
+
+The first application of electricity to elevator propulsion was an
+experiment of the distinguished German electrician Werner von Siemens,
+who, in 1880, constructed a car that successfully climbed a rack by means
+of a motor and worm gearing beneath its deck (figs. 17, 18)--again, the
+characteristic European distrust of cable suspension. However, the effect
+of this success on subsequent development was negligible. Significant use
+of electricity in this field occurred somewhat later, and in a manner
+parallel to that by which steam was first applied to the elevator--the
+driving of mechanical (belt driven) elevator machines by individual
+motors. Slightly later came another application of the "conversion" type.
+This was the simple substitution of electrically driven pumps (fig. 21)
+for steam pumps in hydraulic installations. It will be recalled that pumps
+were necessary in cases where water main pressure was insufficient to
+operate the elevator directly.
+
+In both of these cases the operational demands on the motor were of course
+identical to those on the prime movers which they replaced; no reversal of
+direction was necessary, the speed was constant, and the load was nearly
+constant. Furthermore, the load could be applied to the motor gradually
+through automatic relief valves on the pump and in the mechanical machines
+by slippage as the belt was shifted from the loose to the fast pulleys.
+The ultimate simplicity in control resulted from permitting the motor to
+run continuously, drawing current only in proportion to its loading. The
+direct-current motor of the 1880's was easily capable of such service, and
+it was widely used in this way.
+
+
+[Illustration: Figure 15.--Rope-geared hydraulic freight elevator using a
+horizontal cylinder (about 1883). (From a Lane & Bodley illustrated
+catalog of hydraulic elevators, Cincinnati, n.d.)]
+
+[Illustration: Figure 16.--English direct plunger hydraulic elevator
+(about 1895). (From F. Dye, _Popular Engineering_, London, 1895, p. 280.)]
+
+
+Adaptation of the motor to the direct drive of an elevator machine was
+quite another matter, the difficulties being largely those of control. At
+this time the only practical means of starting a motor under load was by
+introducing resistance into the circuit and cutting it out in a series of
+steps as the speed picked up; precisely the method used to start traction
+motors. In the early attempts to couple the motor directly to the winding
+drum through worm gearing, this "notching up" was transmitted to the car
+as a jerking motion, disagreeable to passengers and hard on machinery.
+Furthermore, the controller contacts had a short life because of the
+arcing which resulted from heavy starting currents. In all, such systems
+were unsatisfactory and generally unreliable, and were held in disfavor by
+both elevator experts and owners.
+
+
+[Illustration: Figure 17.--Siemens' electric rack-climbing elevator of
+1880. (From Werner von Siemens, _Gesammelte Abhandlungen und Vorträge_,
+Berlin, 1881, pl. 5.)]
+
+
+There was, moreover, little inducement to overcome the problem of control
+and other minor problems because of a more serious difficulty which had
+persisted since the days of steam. This was the matter of the drum and its
+attendant limitations. The motor's action being rotatory, the winding drum
+was the only practical way in which to apply its motive power to hoisting.
+This single fact shut electricity almost completely out of any large-scale
+elevator business until after the turn of the century. True, there was a
+certain amount of development, after about 1887, of the electric
+worm-drive drum machine for slow-speed, low-rise service (fig. 19). But
+the first installation of this type that was considered practically
+successful--in that it was in continuous use for a long period--was not
+made until 1889,[7] the year in which the Eiffel Tower was completed.
+
+Pertinent is the one nearly successful attempt which was made to approach
+the high-rise problem electrically. In 1888, Charles R. Pratt, an elevator
+engineer of Montclair, New Jersey, invented a machine based on the
+horizontal cylinder rope-geared hydraulic elevator, in which the two sets
+of sheaves were drawn apart by a screw and traveling nut. The screw was
+revolved directly by a Sprague motor, the system being known as the
+Sprague-Pratt. While a number of installations were made, the machine was
+subject to several serious mechanical faults and passed out of use around
+1900. Generally, electricity as a practical workable power for elevators
+seemed to hold little promise in 1888.[8]
+
+
+[Illustration: Figure 18.--Motor and drive mechanism of Siemens'
+elevator. (From Alfred R. Urbanitzky, _Electricity in the Service of Man_,
+London, 1886, p. 646.)]
+
+[Illustration:
+
+  _Morse, Williams & Co._,
+
+  BUILDERS OF
+  PASSENGER
+  AND
+  FREIGHT
+  ELEVATORS.
+
+  ELECTRIC ELEVATOR.
+
+  Write us for Circulars and Prices.
+
+  Main Office and Works, 1105 Frankford Avenue,
+  PHILADELPHIA.
+
+
+  New York Office,      108 Liberty Street.
+  New Haven  "          82 Church Street.
+  Pittsburg  "          413 Fourth Avenue.
+  Boston Office         19 Pearl Street.
+  Baltimore  "          Builders' Exchange.
+  Scranton   "          425 Spruce Street.
+
+Figure 19.--The electric elevator in its earliest commercial form (1891),
+with the motor connected directly to the load. By this time, incandescent
+lighting circuits in large cities were sufficiently extensive to make such
+installations practical. However, capacity and lift were severely limited
+by weaknesses of the control system and the necessity of using a drum.
+(From _Electrical World_, Jan. 2, 1897, vol. 20, p. xcvii.)]
+
+[Illustration:
+
+  MILLER'S PATENT
+  LIFE AND LABOR-SAVING
+  SCREW HOISTING MACHINE,
+  FOR THE USE OF
+  Stores, Hotels, Warehouses, Factories, Sugar Refineries,
+      Packing Houses, Mills, Docks, Mines, &c.
+  MANUFACTURED BY
+  CAMPBELL, WHITTIER & CO., ROXBURY, MASS.
+  _Sole Agents for the New England States._
+
+The above Engraving illustrates a very superior Hoisting Machine, designed
+for _Store and Warehouse Hoisting_. It is very simple in its construction,
+compact, durable, and not liable to get out of order. An examination of
+the Engraving will convince any one who has any knowledge of Machinery,
+that the screw is the only safe principle on which to construct a Hoisting
+Machine or Elevator.
+
+Figure 20.--Advertisement for the Miller screw-hoisting machine, about
+1867 (see p. 23). From flyer in the United States National Museum.]
+
+[Illustration: Figure 21.--The first widespread use of electricity in the
+elevator field was to drive belt-type mechanical machines and the pumps of
+hydraulic systems (see p. 14) as shown here. (From _Electrical World_,
+Jan. 4, 1890, vol. 15, p. 4.)]
+
+
+
+
+The Tower's Elevators
+
+
+A great part of the Eiffel Tower's worth and its _raison d'être_ lay in
+the overwhelming visual power by which it was to symbolize to a world
+audience the scientific, artistic, and, above all, the technical
+achievements of the French Republic. Another consideration, in Eiffel's
+opinion, was its great potential value as a scientific observatory. At its
+summit grand experiments and observations would be possible in such fields
+as meteorology and astronomy. In this respect it was welcomed as a
+tremendous improvement over the balloon and steam winch that had been
+featured in this service at the 1878 Paris exposition. Experiments were
+also to be conducted on the electrical illumination of cities from great
+heights. The great strategic value of the Tower as an observation post
+also was recognized. But from the beginning, sight was never lost of the
+structure's great value as an unprecedented public attraction, and its
+systematic exploitation in this manner played a part in its planning,
+second perhaps only to the basic design.
+
+The conveyance of multitudes of visitors to the Tower's first or main
+platform and a somewhat lesser number to the summit was a technical
+problem whose seriousness Eiffel must certainly have been aware of at the
+project's onset. While a few visitors could be expected to walk to the
+first or possibly second stage, 377 feet above the ground, the main means
+of transport obviously had to be elevators. Indeed, the two aspects of the
+Tower with which the Exposition commissioners were most deeply concerned
+were the adequate grounding of lightning and the provision of a reliable
+system of elevators, which they insisted be unconditionally safe.
+
+To study the elevator problem, Eiffel retained a man named Backmann who
+was considered an expert on the subject. Apparently Backmann originally
+was to design the complete system, but he was to prove inadequate to the
+task. As his few schemes are studied it becomes increasingly difficult to
+imagine by what qualifications he was regarded as either an elevator
+expert or designer by Eiffel and the Commission. His proposals appear,
+with one exception, to have been decidedly retrogressive, and, further, to
+incorporate the most undesirable features of those earlier systems he
+chose to borrow from. Nothing has been discovered regarding his work, if
+any, on elevators for the lower section of the Tower. Realizing the
+difficulty of this aspect of the problem, he may not have attempted its
+solution, and confined his work to the upper half where the structure
+permitted a straight, vertical run.
+
+
+[Illustration: Figure 22.--Various levels of the Eiffel Tower. (Adapted
+from Gustave Eiffel, _La Tour de Trois Cents Mètres_, Paris, 1900, pl.
+1.)]
+
+
+The Backmann design for the upper elevators was based upon a principle
+which had been attractive to many inventors in the mid-19th century period
+of elevator development--that of "screwing the car up" by means of a
+threaded element and a nut, either of which might be rotated and the other
+remain stationary. The analogy to a nut and bolt made the scheme an
+obvious one at that early time, but its inherent complexity soon became
+equally evident and it never achieved practical success. Backmann
+projected two cylindrical cars that traveled in parallel shafts and
+balanced one another from opposite ends of common cables that passed over
+a sheave in the upperworks. Around the inside of each shaft extended a
+spiral track upon which ran rollers attached to revolving frames
+underneath the cars. When the frames were made to revolve, the rollers,
+running around the track, would raise or lower one car, the other
+traveling in the opposite direction (fig. 23).
+
+
+[Illustration: Figure 23.--Backmann's proposed helicoidal elevator for the
+upper section of the Eiffel Tower. The cars were to be self-powered by
+electric motors. Note similarity to the Miller system (fig. 20). (Adapted
+from _The Engineer_ (London), Aug. 3, 1888, vol. 66, p. 101.)]
+
+
+In the plan as first presented, a ground-based steam engine drove the
+frames and rollers through an endless fly rope--traveling at high speed
+presumably to permit it to be of small diameter and still transmit a
+reasonable amount of power--which engaged pulleys on the cars. The design
+was remarkably similar to that of the Miller Patent Screw Hoisting
+Machine, which had had a brief life in the United States around 1865. The
+Miller system (see p. 19) used a flat belt rather than a rope (fig. 20).
+This plan was quickly rejected, probably because of anticipated
+difficulties with the rope transmission.[9]
+
+Backmann's second proposal, actually approved by the Commission,
+incorporated the only--although highly significant--innovation evident in
+his designs. For the rope transmission, electric motors were substituted,
+one in each car to drive the roller frame directly. With this
+modification, the plan does not seem quite as unreasonable, and would
+probably have worked. However, it would certainly have lacked the
+necessary durability and would have been extremely expensive. The
+Commission discarded the whole scheme about the middle of 1888, giving two
+reasons for its action: (1) the novelty of the system and the attendant
+possibility of stoppages which might seriously interrupt the "exploitation
+of the Tower," and (2) fear that the rollers running around the tracks
+would cause excessive noise and vibration. Both reasons seem quite
+incredible when the Backmann system is compared to one of those actually
+used--the Roux, described below--which obviously must have been subject to
+identical failings, and on a far greater scale. More likely there existed
+an unspoken distrust of electric propulsion.
+
+That the Backmann system should have been given serious consideration at
+all reflects the uncertainty surrounding the entire matter of providing
+elevator service of such unusual nature. Had the Eiffel Tower been erected
+only 15 years later, the situation would have been simply one of
+selection. As it was, Eiffel and the commissioners were governed not by
+what they wanted but largely by what was available.
+
+
+THE OTIS SYSTEM
+
+The curvature of the Tower's legs imposed a problem unique in elevator
+design, and it caused great annoyance to Eiffel, the fair's Commission,
+and all others concerned. Since a vertical shaftway anywhere within the
+open area beneath the first platform was esthetically unthinkable, the
+elevators could be placed only in the inclined legs. The problem of
+reaching the first platform was not serious. The legs were wide enough and
+their curvature so slight in this lower portion as to permit them to
+contain a straight run of track, and the service could have been designed
+along the lines of an ordinary inclined railway. It was estimated that the
+great majority of visitors would go only to this level, attracted by the
+several international restaurants, bars and other features located there.
+Two elevators to operate only that far were contracted for with no
+difficulty--one to be placed in the east leg and one in the west.
+
+To transport people to the second platform was an altogether different
+problem. Since there was to be a single run from the ground, it would have
+been necessary to form the elevator guides either with a constant
+curvature, approximating that of the legs, or with a series of straight
+chords connected by short segmental curves of small radius. Eiffel planned
+initially to use the first method, but the second was adopted ultimately,
+probably as being the simpler because only two straight lengths of run
+were found to be necessary.
+
+Bids were invited for two elevators on this basis--one each for the north
+and south legs. Here the unprecedented character of the matter became
+evident--there was not a firm in France willing to undertake the work. The
+American Elevator Company, the European branch of Otis Brothers & Company,
+did submit a proposal through its Paris office, Otis Ascenseur Cie., but
+the Commission was compelled to reject it because a clause in the fair's
+charter prohibited the use of any foreign material in the construction of
+the Tower. Furthermore, there was a strong prejudice against foreign
+contractors, which, because of the general background of disfavor
+surrounding the project during its early stages, was an element worth
+serious consideration by the Commission. The bidding time was extended,
+and many attempts were made to attract a native design but none was
+forthcoming.
+
+As time grew short, it became imperative to resolve the matter, and the
+Commission, in desperation, awarded the contract to Otis in July 1887 for
+the amount of $22,500.[10] A curious footnote to the affair appeared much
+later in the form of a published interview[11] with W. Frank Hall, Otis'
+Paris representative:
+
+     "Yes," said Mr. Hall, "this is the first elevator of its kind. Our
+     people for thirty-eight years have been doing this work, and have
+     constructed thousands of elevators vertically, and many on an
+     incline, but never one to strike a radius of 160 feet for a distance
+     of over 50 feet. It has required a great amount of preparatory study
+     and we have worked on it for three years."
+
+     "That was before you got the contract?"
+
+     "Quite so, but we knew that, although the French authorities were
+     very reluctant to give away this piece of work, they would be bound
+     to come to us, and so we were preparing for them."
+
+Such supreme confidence must have rapidly evaporated as events progressed.
+Despite the invaluable advertising to be derived from an installation of
+such distinction, the Otises would probably have defaulted had they
+foreseen the difficulties which preceded completion of the work.
+
+
+[Illustration: Figure 24.--General arrangement of Otis elevator system in
+Eiffel Tower. (From _The Engineer_ (London), July 19, 1889, vol. 68, p.
+58.)]
+
+
+The proposed system (fig. 24) was based fundamentally upon Otis' standard
+hydraulic elevator, but it was recognizable only in basic operating
+principle (fig. 25). Tracks of regular rail section replaced the guides
+because of the incline, and the double-decked cabin (fig. 29) ran on small
+flanged wheels. This much of the apparatus was really not unlike that of
+an ordinary inclined railway. Motive power was provided by the customary
+hydraulic cylinder (fig. 26), set on an angle roughly equal to the incline
+of the lower section of run. Balancing the cabin's dead weight was a
+counterpoise carriage (fig. 27) loaded with pig iron that traveled on a
+second set of rails beneath the main track. Like the driving system, the
+counterweight was rope-geared, 3 to 1, so that its travel was about 125
+feet to the cabin's 377 feet.
+
+
+[Illustration: Figure 25.--Schematic diagram of the rigging of the Otis
+system. (Adapted from Gustave Eiffel, _La Tour de Trois Cents Mètres_,
+Paris, 1900, p. 127.)]
+
+
+Everything about the system was on a scale far heavier than found in the
+normal elevator of the type. The cylinder, of 38-inch bore, was 36 feet
+long. Rather than a simple nest of pulleys, the piston rods pulled a large
+guided carriage or "chariot" bearing six movable sheaves (fig. 28).
+Corresponding were five stationary sheaves, the whole reeved to form an
+immense 12-purchase tackle. The car, attached to the free ends of the
+cables, was hauled up as the piston drew the two sheave assemblies apart.
+
+In examining the system, it is difficult to determine what single element
+in its design might have caused such a problem as to have been beyond the
+engineering ability of a French firm, and to have caused such concern to a
+large, well-established American organization of Otis' wide elevator and
+inclined railway experience. Indeed, when the French system--which served
+the first platform from the east and west legs--is examined, it appears
+curious that a national technology capable of producing a machine at such
+a level of complexity should have been unable to deal easily with the
+entire matter. This can be plausibly explained only on the basis of
+Europe's previously mentioned lack of experience with rope-geared and
+other cable-hung elevator systems. The difficulty attending Otis' work,
+usually true in the case of all innovations, lay unquestionably in the
+multitudes of details--many of them, of course, invisible when only the
+successfully working end product is observed.
+
+More than a matter of detail was the Commission's demand for perfect
+safety, which precipitated a situation typical of many confronting Otis
+during the entire work. Otis had wished to coordinate the entire design
+process through Mr. Hall, with technical matters handled by mail.
+Nevertheless, at Eiffel's insistence, and with some inconvenience, in 1888
+the company dispatched the project's engineer, Thomas E. Brown, Jr., to
+Paris for a direct consultation. Mild conflict over minor details ensued,
+but a gross difference of opinion arose ultimately between the American
+and French engineers over the safety of the system. The disagreement
+threatened to halt the entire project. In common with all elevators in
+which the car hangs by cables, the prime consideration here was a means of
+arresting the cabin should the cables fail. As originally presented to
+Eiffel, the plans indicated an elaborate modification of the standard Otis
+safety device--itself a direct derivative of E. G. Otis' original.
+
+If any one of the six hoisting cables broke or stretched unduly, or if
+their tension slackened for any reason, powerful leaf springs were
+released causing brake shoes to grip the rails. The essential feature of
+the design was the car's arrest by friction between its grippers and the
+rails so that the stopping action was gradual, not sudden as in the
+elevator safety. During proof trials of the safety, made prior to the
+fair's opening by cutting away a set of temporary hoisting cables, the
+cabin would fall about 10 feet before being halted.
+
+
+[Illustration: Figure 26.--Section through the Otis power cylinder.
+(Adapted from Gustave Eiffel, _La Tour de Trois Cents Mètres_, Paris,
+1900, pl. 22.)]
+
+[Illustration: Figure 27.--Details of the counterweight carriage in the
+Otis system. (From Gustave Eiffel, _La Tour de Trois Cents Mètres_, Paris,
+1900, pl. 22{4}.)]
+
+
+Although highly efficient and of unquestionable security, this safety
+device was considered an insufficient safeguard by Eiffel, who, speaking
+in the name of the Commission, demanded the application of a device known
+as the rack and pinion safety that was used to some extent on European cog
+railways. The commissioners not only considered this system more reliable
+but felt that one of its features was a necessity: a device that
+permitted the car to be lowered by hand, even after failure of all the
+hoisting cables. The serious shortcomings of the rack and pinion were its
+great noisiness and the limitation it imposed on hoisting speed. Both
+disadvantages were due to the constant engagement of a pinion on the car
+with a continuous rack set between the rails. The meeting ended in an
+impasse, with Brown unwilling to approve the objectionable apparatus and
+able only to return to New York and lay the matter before his company.
+
+While Eiffel's attitude in the matter may appear highly unreasonable, it
+must be said that during a subsequent meeting between Brown and
+Koechlin, the French engineer implied that a mutual antagonism had
+arisen between the Tower's creator and the Commission. Thus, since his own
+judgment must have had little influence with the commissioners at that
+time, Eiffel was compelled to specify what he well knew were excessive
+safety provisions.
+
+This decision placed Otis Brothers in a decidedly uncomfortable position,
+at the mercy of the Commission. W. E. Hale, promoter of the water balance
+elevator--who by then had a strong voice in Otis' affairs--expressed the
+seriousness of the matter in a letter to the company's president, Charles
+R. Otis, following receipt of Brown's report on the Paris conference.
+Referring to the controversial cogwheel, Hale wrote
+
+     ... if this must be arranged so that the car is effected [sic] in its
+     operation by constant contact with the rack and pinion ... so as to
+     communicate the noise and jar, and unpleasant motion which such an
+     arrangement always produces, I should favor giving up the whole
+     matter rather than allying ourselves with any such abortion.... we
+     would be the laughing stock of the world, for putting up such a
+     contrivance.
+
+This difficult situation apparently was the product of a somewhat general
+contract phrased in terms of service to be provided rather than of
+specific equipment to be used. This is not unusual, but it did leave open
+to later dispute such ambiguous clauses as "adequate safety devices are to
+be provided."
+
+Although faced with the loss not only of all previously expended design
+work but also of an advertisement of international consequence, the
+company apparently concurred with Hale and so advised Paris.
+Unfortunately, there are no Otis records to reveal the subsequent
+transactions, but we may assume that Otis' threat of withdrawal prevailed,
+coupled as it was with Eiffel's confidence in the American equipment. The
+system went into operation as originally designed, free of the odious rack
+and pinion.
+
+That, unfortunately, was not the final disagreement. Before the fair's
+opening in May 1889, the relationship was strained so drastically that a
+mutually satisfactory conclusion to the project must indeed have seemed
+hopeless. The numerous minor structural modifications of the Tower legs
+found necessary as construction progressed had necessitated certain
+equivalent alteration to the Otis design insofar as its dependency upon
+the framework was affected. Consequently, work on the machinery was set
+back by some months. Eiffel was informed that although everything was
+guaranteed to be in full operation by opening day on May 1, the
+contractual deadline of January 1 could not possibly be met. Eiffel, now
+unquestionably acting on his own volition, responded by cable, refusing
+all payment. Charles Otis' reply, a classic of indignation, disclosed to
+Eiffel the jeopardy in which his impetuosity had placed the success of the
+entire project:
+
+     After all else we have borne and suffered and achieved in your
+     behalf, we regard this as a trifle too much; and we do not hesitate
+     to declare, in the strongest terms possible to the English language,
+     that we will not put up with it ... and, if there is to be War, under
+     the existing circumstances, propose that at least part of it shall be
+     fought on American ground. If Mr. Eiffel shall, on the contrary,
+     treat us as we believe we are entitled to be treated, under the
+     circumstances, and his confidence in our integrity to serve him well
+     shall be restored in season to admit of the completion of this work
+     at the time wanted, well and good; but it must be done at once ...
+     otherwise we shall ship no more work from this side, and Mr. Eiffel
+     must charge to himself the consequences of his own acts.
+
+This message apparently had the desired effect and the matter was somehow
+resolved, as the machinery was in full operation when the Exposition
+opened. The installation must have had immense promotional value for Otis
+Brothers, particularly in its contrast to the somewhat anomalous French
+system. This contrast evidently was visible to the technically
+unsophisticated as well as to visiting engineers. Several newspapers
+reported that the Otis elevators were one of the best American exhibits at
+the fair.
+
+In spite of their large over-all scale and the complication of the basic
+pattern imposed by the unique situation, the Otis elevators performed well
+and justified the original judgment and confidence which had prompted
+Eiffel to fight for their installation. Aside from the obvious advantage
+of simplicity when compared to the French machines, their operation was
+relatively quiet, and fast.
+
+The double car, traveling at 400 feet per minute, carried 40 persons, all
+seated because of the change of inclination. The main valve or distributor
+that controlled the flow of water to and from the driving cylinder was
+operated from the car by cables. The hydraulic head necessary to produce
+pressure within the cylinder was obtained from a large open reservoir on
+the second platform. After being exhausted from the cylinder, the water
+was pumped back up by two Girard pumps (fig. 31) in the engine room at
+the base of the Tower's south leg.
+
+
+THE SYSTEM OF ROUX, COMBALUZIER AND LEPAPE
+
+There can be little doubt that the French elevators placed in the east and
+west piers to carry visitors to the first stage of the Tower had the
+important secondary function of saving face. That an engineer of Eiffel's
+mechanical perception would have permitted their use, unless compelled to
+do so by the Exposition Commission, is unthinkable. Whatever the attitudes
+of the commissioners may have been, it must be said--recalling the
+Backmann system--that they did not fear innovation. The machinery
+installed by the firm of Roux, Combaluzier and Lepape was novel in every
+respect, but it was a product of misguided ingenuity and set no precedent.
+The system, never duplicated, was conceived, born, lived a brief and not
+overly creditable life, and died, entirely within the Tower.
+
+Basis of the French system was an endless chain of short, rigid,
+articulated links (fig. 35), to one point of which the car was attached.
+As the chain moved, the car was raised or lowered. Recalling the European
+distrust of suspended elevators, it is interesting to note that the car
+was pushed up by the links below, not drawn by those above, thus the
+active links were in compression. To prevent buckling of the column, the
+chain was enclosed in a conduit (fig. 36). Excessive friction was
+prevented by a pair of small rollers at each of the knuckle joints between
+the links. The system was, in fact, a duplicate one, with a chain on
+either side of the car. At the bottom of the run the chains passed around
+huge sprocket wheels, 12.80 feet in diameter, with pockets on their
+peripheries to engage the joints. Smaller wheels at the top guided the
+chains.
+
+If by some motive force the wheel (fig. 33) were turned counterclockwise,
+the lower half of the chain would be driven upward, carrying the car with
+it. Slots on the inside faces of the lower guide trunks permitted passage
+of the connection between the car and chain. Lead weights on certain links
+of the chains' upper or return sections counterbalanced most of the car's
+dead weight.
+
+
+[Illustration: Figure 28.--Plan and section of the Otis system's movable
+pulley assembly, or chariot. Piston rods are at left. (Adapted from _The
+Engineer_ (London), July 19, 1889, vol. 68, p. 58.)]
+
+
+Two horizontal cylinders rotated the driving sprockets through a mechanism
+whose effect was similar to the rope-gearing of the standard hydraulic
+elevator, but which might be described as chain gearing. The cylinders
+were of the pushing rather than the pulling type used in the Otis system;
+that is, the pressure was introduced behind the plungers, driving them
+out. To the ends of the plungers were fixed smooth-faced sheaves, over
+which were looped heavy quadruple-link pitch chains, one end of each being
+solidly attached to the machine base. The free ends ran under the cylinder
+and made another half-wrap around small sprockets keyed to the main drive
+shaft. As the plungers were forced outward, the free ends of the chain
+moved in the opposite direction, at twice the velocity and linear
+displacement of the plungers. The drive sprockets were thereby revolved,
+driving up the car. Descent was made simply by permitting the cylinders to
+exhaust, the car dropping of its own weight. The over-all gear or ratio of
+the system was the multiplication due to the double purchase of the
+plunger sheaves times the ratio of the chain and drive sprocket diameters:
+2(12.80/1.97) or about 13:1. To drive the car 218 feet to the first
+platform of the Tower the plungers traveled only about 16.5 feet.
+
+To penetrate the inventive rationale behind this strange machine is not
+difficult. Aware of the fundamental dictum of absolute safety before all
+else, the Roux engineers turned logically to the safest known elevator
+type--the direct plunger. This type of elevator, being well suited to low
+rises, formed the main body of European practice at the time, and in this
+fact lay the further attraction of a system firmly based on tradition.
+Since the piers between the ground and first platform could accommodate a
+straight, although inclined run, the solution might obviously have been to
+use an inclined, direct plunger. The only difficulty would have been that
+of drilling a 220-foot, inclined well for the cylinder. While a difficult
+problem, it would not have been insurmountable. What then was the reason
+for using a design vastly more complex? The only reasonable answer that
+presents itself is that the designers, working in a period before the
+Otis bid had been accepted, were attempting to evolve an apparatus capable
+of the complete service to the second platform. The use of a rigid direct
+plunger thus precluded, it became necessary to transpose the basic idea in
+order to adapt it to the curvature of the Tower leg, and at the same time
+retain its inherent quality of safety. Continuing the conceptual sequence,
+the idea of a plunger made in some manner flexible apparently suggested
+itself, becoming the heart of the Roux machines.
+
+
+[Illustration: Figure 29.--Section through cabin of the Otis elevator.
+Note the pivoted floor-sections. As the car traveled, these floor-sections
+were leveled by the operator to compensate for the change of inclination;
+however, they were soon removed because they interfered with the loading
+and unloading of passengers. (From _La Nature_, May 4, 1889, vol. 17, p.
+360.)]
+
+
+Here then was a design exhibiting strange contrast. It was on the one hand
+completely novel, devised expressly for this trying service; yet on the
+other hand it was derived from and fundamentally based on a thoroughly
+traditional system. If nothing else, it was safe beyond question. In
+Eiffel's own words, the Roux lifts "not only were safe, but appeared
+safe; a most desirable feature in lifts traveling to such heights and
+carrying the general public."[12]
+
+The system's shortcomings could hardly be more evident. Friction resulting
+from the more than 320 joints in the flexible pistons, each carrying two
+rollers, plus that from the pitch chains must have been immense. The noise
+created by such multiplicity of parts can only be imagined. Capacity was
+equivalent to that of the Otis system. About 100 people could be carried
+in the double-deck cabin, some standing. The speed, however, was only 200
+feet per minute, understandably low.
+
+If it had been the initial intention of the designers to operate their
+cars to the second platform, they must shortly have become aware of the
+impracticability of this plan, caused by an inherent characteristic of the
+apparatus. As long as the compressive force acted along the longitudinal
+axis of the links, there was no lateral resultant and the only load on the
+small rollers was that due to the dead weight of the link itself. However,
+if a curve had been introduced in the guide channels to increase the
+incline of the upper run, as done by Otis, the force on those links
+traversing the bend would have been eccentric--assuming the car to be in
+the upper section, above the bend. The difference between the two sections
+(based upon the Otis system) was 78°9' minus 54°35', or 23°34', the
+tangent of which equals 0.436. Forty-three percent of the unbalanced
+weight of the car and load would then have borne upon the, say, 12 sets of
+rollers on the curve. The immense frictional load thus added to the entire
+system would certainly have made it dismally inefficient, if not actually
+unworkable.
+
+In spite of Eiffel's public remarks regarding the safety of the Roux
+machinery, in private he did not trouble to conceal his doubts. Otis'
+representative, Hall, discussing this toward the end of Brown's previously
+mentioned report, probably presented a fairly accurate picture of the
+situation. His comments were based on conversations with Eiffel and
+Koechlin:
+
+     Mr. Gibson, Mr. Hanning [who were other Otis employees] and myself
+     came to the unanimous conclusion that Mr. Eiffel had been forced to
+     order those other machines, from outside parties, against his own
+     judgment: and that he was very much in doubt as to their being a
+     practical success--and was, therefore, all the more anxious to put in
+     our machines (which he did have faith in) ... and if the others ate
+     up coal in proportions greatly in excess of ours, he would have it to
+     say ... "Gentlemen, these are my choice of elevators, those are yours
+     &c." There was a published interview ... in which Eiffel stated ...
+     that he was to meet some American gentlemen the following day, who
+     were to provide him with elevators--grand elevators, I think he
+     said....
+
+
+[Illustration: Figure 30.--Upperworks and passenger platforms of the Otis
+system at second level. (From _La Nature_, Aug. 10, 1889, vol. 17, p.
+169.)]
+
+
+The Roux and the Otis systems both drew their water supply from the same
+tanks; also, each system used similar distributing valves (fig. 32)
+operated from the cars. Although no reports have been found of actual
+controlled tests comparing the efficiencies of the Otis and Roux systems,
+a general quantitative comparison may be made from the balance figures
+given for each (p. 40), where it is seen that 2,665 pounds of excess
+tractive effort were allowed to overcome the friction of the Otis
+machinery against 13,856 pounds for the Roux.
+
+
+THE EDOUX SYSTEM
+
+The section of the Tower presenting the least difficulty to elevator
+installation was that above the juncture of the four legs--from the second
+platform to the third, or observation, enclosure. There was no question
+that French equipment could perform this service. The run being perfectly
+straight and vertical, the only unusual demand upon contemporary elevator
+technology was the length of rise--525 feet.
+
+The system ultimately selected (fig. 37) appealed to the Commission
+largely because of a similar one that had been installed in one tower of
+the famous Trocadero[13] and which had been operating successfully for 10
+years. It was the direct plunger system of Leon Edoux, and was, for the
+time, far more rationally contrived than Backmann's helicoidal system.
+Edoux, an old schoolmate of Eiffel's, had built thousands of elevators in
+France and was possibly the country's most successful inventor and
+manufacturer in the field. It is likely that he did not attempt to obtain
+the contract for the elevator equipment in the Tower legs, as his
+experience was based almost entirely on plunger systems, a type, as we
+have seen, not readily adaptable to that situation. What is puzzling was
+the failure of the Commission's members to recognize sooner Edoux's
+obvious ability to provide equipment for the upper run. It may have been
+due to their inexplicable confidence in Backmann.
+
+
+[Illustration: Figure 31.--The French Girard pumps that supplied the Otis
+and Roux systems. (From _La Nature_, Oct. 5, 1889, vol. 17, p. 292.)]
+
+
+The direct plunger elevator was the only type in which European practice
+was in advance of American practice at this time. Not until the beginning
+of the 20th century, when hydraulic systems were forced into competition
+with electrical systems, was the direct plunger elevator improved in
+America to the extent of being practically capable of high rises and
+speeds. Another reason for its early disfavor in the United States was the
+necessity for drilling an expensive plunger well equal in length to the
+rise.[14]
+
+As mentioned, the most serious problem confronting Edoux was the extremely
+high rise of 525 feet. The Trocadero elevator, then the highest plunger
+machine in the world, traveled only about 230 feet. A secondary
+difficulty was the esthetic undesirability of permitting a plunger
+cylinder to project downward a distance equal to such a rise, which would
+have carried it directly into the center of the open area beneath the
+first platform (fig. 6). Both problems were met by an ingenious
+modification of the basic system. The run was divided into two equal
+sections, each of 262 feet, and two cars were used. One operated from the
+bottom of the run at the second platform level to an intermediate platform
+half-way up, while the other operated from this point to the observation
+platform near the top of the Tower. The two sections were of course
+parallel, but offset. A central guide, on the Tower's center-line, running
+the entire 525 feet served both cars, with shorter guides on either
+side--one for the upper and one for the lower run. Thus, each car traveled
+only half the total distance. The two cars were connected, as in the
+Backmann system, by steel cables running over sheaves at the top,
+balancing each other and eliminating the need for counterweights. Two
+driving rams were used. By being placed beneath the upper car, their
+cylinders extended downward only the 262 feet to the second platform and
+so did not project beyond the confines of the system itself.[15] In making
+the upward or downward trip, the passengers had to change from one car to
+the other at the intermediate platform, where the two met and parted (fig.
+39). This transfer was the only undesirable feature of what was, on the
+whole, a thoroughly efficient and well designed work of elevator
+engineering.
+
+
+[Illustration: Figure 32.--The Otis distributor, with valves shown in
+motionless, neutral position. Since the main valve at all times was
+subjected to the full operating pressure, it was necessary to drive this
+valve with a servo piston. The control cable operated only the servo
+piston's valve. (Adapted from Gustave Eiffel, _La Tour de Trois Cents
+Mètres_, Paris, 1900, p. 130.)]
+
+[Illustration: Figure 33.--General arrangement of the Roux Combaluzier and
+Lepape elevator.]
+
+[Illustration: Figure 34.--Roux, Combaluzier and Lepape machinery and
+cabin at the Tower's base. (From _La Nature_, Aug. 10, 1889, vol. 17, p.
+168.)]
+
+
+In operation, water was admitted to the two cylinders from a tank on the
+third platform. The resultant hydraulic head was sufficient to force out
+the rams and raise the upper car. As the rams and car rose, the rising
+water level in the cylinders caused a progressive reduction of the
+available head. This negative effect was further heightened by the fact
+that, as the rams moved upward, less and less of their length was
+buoyed by the water within the cylinders, increasing their effective
+weight. These two factors were, however, exactly compensated for by the
+lengthening of the cables on the other side of the pulleys as the lower
+car descended. Perfect balance of the system's dead load for any position
+of the cabins was, therefore, a quality inherent in its design. However,
+there were two extreme conditions of live loading which required
+consideration: the lower car full and the upper empty, or vice versa. To
+permit the upper car to descend under the first condition, the plungers
+were made sufficiently heavy, by the addition of cast iron at their lower
+ends, to overbalance the weight of a capacity load in the lower car. The
+second condition demanded simply that the system be powerful enough to
+lift the unbalanced weight of the plungers plus the weight of passengers
+in the upper car.
+
+As in the other systems, safety was a matter of prime importance. In this
+case, the element of risk lay in the possibility of the suspended car
+falling. The upper car, resting on the rams, was virtually free of such
+danger. Here again the influence of Backmann was felt--a brake of his
+design was applied (fig. 38). It was, true to form, a throwback, similar
+safety devices having proven unsuccessful much earlier. Attached to the
+lower car were two helically threaded vertical rollers, working within
+the hollow guides. Corresponding helical ribs in the guides rotated the
+rollers as the car moved. If the car speed exceeded a set limit, the
+increased resistance offered by the apparatus drove the rollers up into
+friction cups, slowing or stopping the car.
+
+
+[Illustration: Figure 35.--Detail of links in the Roux system. (From
+Gustave Eiffel, _La Tour de Trois Cents Mètres_, Paris, 1900, p. 156.)]
+
+[Illustration: Figure 36.--Section of guide trunks in the Roux system.
+(From Gustave Eiffel, _La Tour de Trois Cents Mètres_, Paris, 1900, p.
+156.)]
+
+
+The device was considered ineffectual by Edoux and Eiffel, who were aware
+that the ultimate safety of the system resulted from the use of supporting
+cables far heavier than necessary. There were four such cables, with a
+total sectional area of 15.5 square inches. The total maximum load to
+which the cables might be subjected was about 47,000 pounds, producing a
+stress of about 3,000 pounds per square inch compared to a breaking stress
+of 140,000 pounds per square inch--a safety factor of 46![16]
+
+
+[Illustration: Figure 37.--Schematic diagram of the Edoux system. (Adapted
+from Gustave Eiffel, _La Tour de Trois Cents Mètres_, Paris, 1900, p.
+175.)]
+
+[Illustration: Figure 38.--Vertical section through lower (suspended)
+Edoux car, showing Backmann helicoidal safety brake. (Adapted from Gustave
+Eiffel, _La Tour Eiffel en 1900_, Paris, 1902, p. 12.)]
+
+
+A curiosity in connection with the Edoux system was the use of Worthington
+(American) pumps (fig. 40) to carry the water exhausted from the cylinders
+back to the supply tanks. No record has been found that might explain why
+this particular exception was made to the "foreign materials" stipulation.
+This exception is even more strange in view of Otis' futile request for
+the same pumps and the fact that any number of native machines must have
+been available. It is possible that Edoux's personal influence was
+sufficient to overcome the authority of the regulation.
+
+
+[Illustration: Figure 39.--Passengers changing cars on Edoux elevator at
+intermediate platform. (From _La Nature_, May 4, 1889, vol. 17, p. 361.)]
+
+[Illustration: Figure 40.--Worthington tandem compound steam pumps, at
+base of the Tower's south pier, supplied water for the Edoux system. The
+tank was at 896 feet, but suction was taken from the top of the cylinders
+at 643 feet; therefore, the pumps worked against a head of only about 250
+feet. (From _La Nature_, Oct. 5, 1889, vol. 17, p. 293.)]
+
+[Illustration: Figure 41.--Recent view of lower car of the Edoux system,
+showing slotted cylindrical guides that enclose the cables.]
+
+
+
+
+Epilogue
+
+
+In 1900, after the customary 11-year period, Paris again prepared for an
+international exposition, about 5 years too early to take advantage of the
+great progress made by the electric elevator. When the Roux machines, the
+weakest element in the Eiffel Tower system, were replaced at this time, it
+was by other hydraulics. Built by the well known French engineering
+organization of Fives-Lilles, the new machines were the ultimate in power,
+control, and general excellence of operation. As in the Otis system, the
+cars ran all the way to the second platform.
+
+The Fives-Lilles equipment reflected the advance of European elevator
+engineering in this short time. The machines were rope-geared and
+incorporated the elegant feature of self-leveling cabins which compensated
+for the varying track inclination. For the 1900 fair, the Otis elevator in
+the south pier was also removed and a wide stairway to the first platform
+built in its place. In 1912, 25 years after Backmann's startling proposal
+to use electricity for his system, the remaining Otis elevator was
+replaced by a small electric one. This innovation was reluctantly
+introduced solely for the purpose of accommodating visitors in the winter
+when the hydraulic systems were shut down due to freezing weather. The
+electric elevator had a short life, being removed in 1922 when the number
+of winter visitors increased far beyond its capacity. However, the two
+hydraulic systems were modified to operate in freezing
+temperatures--presumably by the simple expedient of adding an
+antifreezing chemical to the water--and operation was placed on a
+year-round basis.
+
+Today the two Fives-Lilles hydraulic systems remain in full use; and
+visitors reach the Tower's summit by Edoux's elevator (fig. 41), which is
+all that remains of the original installation.
+
+
+BALANCE OF THE THREE ELEVATOR SYSTEMS
+
+_The Otis System_
+
+Negative effect
+
+  Weight of cabin: 23,900 lb. × sin 78°9' (incline of upper run) 23,390 lb.
+  Live load: 40 persons @150 lb. = 6,000 × sin 78°9'              5,872
+                                                                 ------  -- 29,262 lb.
+
+Positive effect
+
+  Counterweight: 55,000 × sin 54°35' (incline of lower run)
+                 ------------------------------------------
+                            3 (rope gear ratio)                  14,940 lb.
+
+  Weight of piston and chariot:  33,060 × sin 54°35'
+                                 ------------------
+                                     12 (ratio)                   2,245
+
+  Power: 156 p.s.i. × 1,134 sq. in. (piston area)
+         ----------------------------------------
+                     12 (ratio)                                  14,742     31,927 lb.
+
+Excess to overcome friction                                                  2,665 lb.
+
+
+_The Roux, Combaluzier and Lepape System_
+
+Negative effect
+
+  Weight of cabin: 14,100 × sin 54°35'                           11,500 lb.
+  Live load: 100 persons @150 lb. = 15,000 × sin 54°35'          12,220
+                                                                 ------  -- 23,720 lb.
+
+Positive effect
+
+  Counterweight: 6,600 × sin 54°35'                               5,380
+
+  Power: 156 p.s.i. × 2 (pistons) × 1,341.5 sq. in. (piston area)
+         ------------------------------------------
+                         13 (ratio)                              32,196     37,576 lb.
+                                                                 ------     ----------
+Excess to overcome friction                                                 13,856 lb.
+
+
+_The Edoux System_
+
+Negative effect
+
+  Unbalanced weight of plungers (necessary to raise full
+    lower car and weight of cables on lower side)                42,330 lb.
+
+  Live load: 60 persons @150 lb.                                  9,000
+                                                                 ------  -- 51,330 lb.
+
+
+Positive effect
+
+  Power: 227.5 p.s.i. × 2 (plungers) × 124 sq. in. (plunger area)           56,420 lb.
+                                                                            ----------
+  Excess to overcome friction                                                5,090 lb.
+
+
+
+
+Footnotes:
+
+[1] Translated from Jean A. Keim, _La Tour Eiffel_, Paris, 1950.
+
+[2] The foundation footings exerted a pressure on the earth of about 200
+pounds per square foot, roughly one-sixth that of the Washington Monument,
+then the highest structure in the world.
+
+[3] A type of elevator known as the "teagle" was in use in some multistory
+English factories by about 1835. From its description, this elevator
+appears to have been primarily for the use of passengers, but it
+unquestionably carried freight as well. The machine shown in figure 7 had,
+with the exception of a car safety, all the features of later systems
+driven from line shafting--counterweight, control from the car, and
+reversal by straight and crossed belts.
+
+[4] The Otis safety, of which a modified form is still used, consisted
+essentially of a leaf wagon spring, on the car frame, kept strained by the
+tension of the hoisting cables. If these gave way, the spring, released,
+drove dogs into continuous racks on the vertical guides, holding the car
+or platform in place.
+
+[5] A notable exception was the elevator in the Washington Monument.
+Installed in 1880 for raising materials during the structure's final
+period of erection and afterwards converted to passenger service, it was
+for many years the highest-rise elevator in the world (about 500 feet),
+and was certainly among the slowest, having a speed of 50 feet per minute.
+
+[6] Today, although not limited by the machinery, speeds are set at a
+maximum of about 1,400 feet per minute. If higher speeds were used, an
+impractically long express run would be necessary for starting and
+stopping in order to prevent an acceleration so rapid as to be
+uncomfortable to passengers and a strain on the equipment.
+
+[7] Two machines, by Otis, in the Demarest Building, Fifth Avenue and 33d
+Street, New York. They were in use for over 30 years.
+
+[8] Although the eventually successful application of electric power to
+the elevator did not occur until 1904, and therefore goes beyond the
+chronological scope of this discussion, it was of such importance insofar
+as current practice is concerned as to be worthy of brief mention. In that
+year the first gearless traction machine was installed by Otis in a
+Chicago theatre. As the name implies, the cables were not wrapped on a
+drum but passed, from the car, over a grooved sheave directly on the motor
+shaft, the other ends being attached to the counterweights. The result was
+a system of beautiful simplicity, capable of any rise and speed with no
+proportionate increase in the number or size of its parts, and free from
+any possibility of car or weights being drawn into the machinery. This
+system is still the only one used for rises of over 100 feet or so. By the
+time of its introduction, motor controls had been improved to the point of
+complete practicability.
+
+[9] Mechanical transmission of power by wire rope was a well developed
+practice at this time, involving in many instances high powers and
+distances up to a mile. To attempt this system in the Eiffel Tower,
+crowded with structural work, machinery and people, was another matter.
+
+[10] According to Otis Elevator Company, the final price, because of
+extras, was $30,000.
+
+[11] In _Pall Mall Gazette_, as quoted in _The Engineering and Building
+Record and the Sanitary Engineer_, May 25, 1889, vol. 19, p. 345.
+
+[12] From speech at annual summer meeting of Institution of Mechanical
+Engineers, Paris, 1889. Quoted in _Engineering_, July 5, 1889, vol. 48, p.
+18.
+
+[13] Located near the Tower, built for the Paris fair of 1878.
+
+[14] Improved oil-well drilling techniques were influential in the intense
+but short burst of popularity enjoyed by direct plunger systems in the
+United States between 1899 and 1910. In New York, many such systems of
+200-foot rise, and one of 380 feet, were installed.
+
+[15] An obvious question arises here: What prevents a plunger 200 or 300
+feet long and no more than 16 inches in diameter from buckling under its
+compressive loading? The answer is simply that most of this length is not
+in compression but in tension. The Edoux rams, when fully extended,
+virtually hung from the upper car, sustained by the weight of 500 feet of
+cable on the other side of the sheaves. As the upper car descended this
+effect diminished, but as the rams moved back into the cylinders their
+unsupported length was correspondingly reduced.
+
+[16] M. A. Ansaloni, "The Lifts in the Eiffel Tower," quoted in
+_Engineering_, July 5, 1889, vol. 48, p. 23. The strength of steel when
+drawn into wire is increased tremendously. Breaking stresses of 140,000
+p.s.i. were not particularly high at the time. Special cables with
+breaking stresses of up to 370,000 p.s.i. were available.
+
+
+
+
+Transcriber's Notes:
+
+Passages in italics are indicated by _underscore_.
+
+The original was printed in two columns per page.
+
+Illustrations have been moved to the nearest paragraph break.
+
+The following misprints have been corrected:
+  "Trevethick's" corrected to "Trevithick's" (page 5)
+  "then" corrected to "than" (page 14)
+  "smiliar" corrected to "similar" (page 31)
+
+
+
+
+
+
+End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of Elevator Systems of the Eiffel Tower,
+1889, by Robert M. Vogel
+
+*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK ELEVATOR SYSTEMS ***
+
+***** This file should be named 32282-8.txt or 32282-8.zip *****
+This and all associated files of various formats will be found in:
+        http://www.gutenberg.org/3/2/2/8/32282/
+
+Produced by Chris Curnow, Joseph Cooper and the Online
+Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net.
+
+
+Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions
+will be renamed.
+
+Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no
+one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation
+(and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without
+permission and without paying copyright royalties.  Special rules,
+set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to
+copying and distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works to
+protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark.  Project
+Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you
+charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission.  If you
+do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the
+rules is very easy.  You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose
+such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and
+research.  They may be modified and printed and given away--you may do
+practically ANYTHING with public domain eBooks.  Redistribution is
+subject to the trademark license, especially commercial
+redistribution.
+
+
+
+*** START: FULL LICENSE ***
+
+THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
+PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK
+
+To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free
+distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work
+(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project
+Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project
+Gutenberg-tm License (available with this file or online at
+http://gutenberg.org/license).
+
+
+Section 1.  General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm
+electronic works
+
+1.A.  By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm
+electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to
+and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property
+(trademark/copyright) agreement.  If you do not agree to abide by all
+the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy
+all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your possession.
+If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the
+terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or
+entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.
+
+1.B.  "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark.  It may only be
+used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who
+agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement.  There are a few
+things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works
+even without complying with the full terms of this agreement.  See
+paragraph 1.C below.  There are a lot of things you can do with Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement
+and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
+works.  See paragraph 1.E below.
+
+1.C.  The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation"
+or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic works.  Nearly all the individual works in the
+collection are in the public domain in the United States.  If an
+individual work is in the public domain in the United States and you are
+located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from
+copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative
+works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg
+are removed.  Of course, we hope that you will support the Project
+Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting free access to electronic works by
+freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of
+this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with
+the work.  You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by
+keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project
+Gutenberg-tm License when you share it without charge with others.
+
+1.D.  The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern
+what you can do with this work.  Copyright laws in most countries are in
+a constant state of change.  If you are outside the United States, check
+the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement
+before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or
+creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project
+Gutenberg-tm work.  The Foundation makes no representations concerning
+the copyright status of any work in any country outside the United
+States.
+
+1.E.  Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:
+
+1.E.1.  The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate
+access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently
+whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the
+phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the phrase "Project
+Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed,
+copied or distributed:
+
+This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with
+almost no restrictions whatsoever.  You may copy it, give it away or
+re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included
+with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org
+
+1.E.2.  If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived
+from the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is
+posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied
+and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees
+or charges.  If you are redistributing or providing access to a work
+with the phrase "Project Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the
+work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1
+through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the
+Project Gutenberg-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or
+1.E.9.
+
+1.E.3.  If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted
+with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
+must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional
+terms imposed by the copyright holder.  Additional terms will be linked
+to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works posted with the
+permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work.
+
+1.E.4.  Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm
+License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this
+work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm.
+
+1.E.5.  Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this
+electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
+prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with
+active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
+Gutenberg-tm License.
+
+1.E.6.  You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
+compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any
+word processing or hypertext form.  However, if you provide access to or
+distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than
+"Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official version
+posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.org),
+you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a
+copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon
+request, of the work in its original "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other
+form.  Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm
+License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.
+
+1.E.7.  Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,
+performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works
+unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
+
+1.E.8.  You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing
+access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided
+that
+
+- You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
+     the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method
+     you already use to calculate your applicable taxes.  The fee is
+     owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he
+     has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the
+     Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation.  Royalty payments
+     must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you
+     prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax
+     returns.  Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and
+     sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the
+     address specified in Section 4, "Information about donations to
+     the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation."
+
+- You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies
+     you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he
+     does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm
+     License.  You must require such a user to return or
+     destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium
+     and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of
+     Project Gutenberg-tm works.
+
+- You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any
+     money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the
+     electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days
+     of receipt of the work.
+
+- You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
+     distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works.
+
+1.E.9.  If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm
+electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set
+forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from
+both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael
+Hart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark.  Contact the
+Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below.
+
+1.F.
+
+1.F.1.  Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable
+effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread
+public domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm
+collection.  Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
+works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain
+"Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or
+corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual
+property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a
+computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by
+your equipment.
+
+1.F.2.  LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right
+of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project
+Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project
+Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all
+liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal
+fees.  YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT
+LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
+PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH F3.  YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE
+TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE
+LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR
+INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
+DAMAGE.
+
+1.F.3.  LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a
+defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can
+receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a
+written explanation to the person you received the work from.  If you
+received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with
+your written explanation.  The person or entity that provided you with
+the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a
+refund.  If you received the work electronically, the person or entity
+providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to
+receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund.  If the second copy
+is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further
+opportunities to fix the problem.
+
+1.F.4.  Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth
+in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS' WITH NO OTHER
+WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO
+WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTIBILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.
+
+1.F.5.  Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied
+warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages.
+If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the
+law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be
+interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by
+the applicable state law.  The invalidity or unenforceability of any
+provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.
+
+1.F.6.  INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the
+trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone
+providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance
+with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production,
+promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works,
+harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees,
+that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do
+or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg-tm
+work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any
+Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause.
+
+
+Section  2.  Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm
+
+Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of
+electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers
+including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers.  It exists
+because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from
+people in all walks of life.
+
+Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the
+assistance they need, are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's
+goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will
+remain freely available for generations to come.  In 2001, the Project
+Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure
+and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future generations.
+To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
+and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4
+and the Foundation web page at http://www.pglaf.org.
+
+
+Section 3.  Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
+Foundation
+
+The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit
+501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the
+state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal
+Revenue Service.  The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification
+number is 64-6221541.  Its 501(c)(3) letter is posted at
+http://pglaf.org/fundraising.  Contributions to the Project Gutenberg
+Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent
+permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's laws.
+
+The Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S.
+Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered
+throughout numerous locations.  Its business office is located at
+809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887, email
+business@pglaf.org.  Email contact links and up to date contact
+information can be found at the Foundation's web site and official
+page at http://pglaf.org
+
+For additional contact information:
+     Dr. Gregory B. Newby
+     Chief Executive and Director
+     gbnewby@pglaf.org
+
+
+Section 4.  Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg
+Literary Archive Foundation
+
+Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide
+spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of
+increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be
+freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest
+array of equipment including outdated equipment.  Many small donations
+($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt
+status with the IRS.
+
+The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating
+charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United
+States.  Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a
+considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up
+with these requirements.  We do not solicit donations in locations
+where we have not received written confirmation of compliance.  To
+SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any
+particular state visit http://pglaf.org
+
+While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we
+have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition
+against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who
+approach us with offers to donate.
+
+International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make
+any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
+outside the United States.  U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.
+
+Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation
+methods and addresses.  Donations are accepted in a number of other
+ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations.
+To donate, please visit: http://pglaf.org/donate
+
+
+Section 5.  General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
+works.
+
+Professor Michael S. Hart is the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm
+concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared
+with anyone.  For thirty years, he produced and distributed Project
+Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support.
+
+
+Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed
+editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S.
+unless a copyright notice is included.  Thus, we do not necessarily
+keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition.
+
+
+Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility:
+
+     http://www.gutenberg.org
+
+This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm,
+including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
+Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to
+subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.
diff --git a/32282-8.zip b/32282-8.zip
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..57f5ecb
--- /dev/null
+++ b/32282-8.zip
diff --git a/32282-h.zip b/32282-h.zip
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..872273c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/32282-h.zip
diff --git a/32282-h/32282-h.htm b/32282-h/32282-h.htm
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..cf8341c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/32282-h/32282-h.htm
@@ -0,0 +1,2139 @@
+<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
+    "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">
+
+<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
+  <head>
+    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=iso-8859-1" />
+    <title>
+      The Project Gutenberg eBook of Elevator Systems of the Eiffel Tower, 1889, by Robert M. Vogel.
+    </title>
+    <style type="text/css">
+
+    p {margin-top: .75em; text-align: justify; margin-bottom: .75em;}
+
+    h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6 {text-align: center; clear: both;}
+
+    hr {width: 33%; margin-top: 2em; margin-bottom: 2em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; clear: both;}
+
+	.color {color: white;}
+
+    table {margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;}
+
+    body {margin-left: 12%; margin-right: 12%;}
+
+    .pagenum  {position: absolute; left: 92%; font-size: smaller; text-align: right; font-style: normal;}
+
+    .blockquot {margin-left: 5%; margin-right: 10%;}
+    .title {margin-left: 15%; margin-right: 30%;}
+	.note {margin-left: 20%; margin-right: 20%;}
+
+    .right {text-align: right;}
+    .center   {text-align: center;}
+    .smcap    {font-variant: small-caps;}
+    .smcaplc          {text-transform: lowercase; font-variant: small-caps;}
+
+    .figcenter   {margin: auto; text-align: center;}
+    .figleft     {float: left; clear: left; margin-left: 0; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-top:
+                 1em; margin-right: 1em; padding: 0; text-align: center;}
+    .figright    {float: right; clear: right; margin-left: 1em; margin-bottom: 1em;
+                 margin-top: 1em; margin-right: 0; padding: 0; text-align: center;}
+
+    .bbox     {border: solid 2px; padding: 2em;}
+
+    .tmblink {font-size: 10.5px; text-align: center;}
+
+    p.dropcap:first-letter{float: left; padding-right: 3px; font-size: 250%; line-height: 83%; width:auto;}
+    .caps             {text-transform:uppercase;}
+
+    a:link {color:#0000ff; text-decoration:none}
+    a:visited {color:#6633cc; text-decoration:none}
+
+    .spacer  {padding-left: 1em; padding-right: 1em;}
+
+    ins.correction {text-decoration:none; border-bottom: thin solid gray;}
+
+    </style>
+  </head>
+<body>
+
+
+<pre>
+
+The Project Gutenberg EBook of Elevator Systems of the Eiffel Tower, 1889, by 
+Robert M. Vogel
+
+This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with
+almost no restrictions whatsoever.  You may copy it, give it away or
+re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included
+with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org
+
+
+Title: Elevator Systems of the Eiffel Tower, 1889
+
+Author: Robert M. Vogel
+
+Release Date: May 7, 2010 [EBook #32282]
+
+Language: English
+
+Character set encoding: ISO-8859-1
+
+*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK ELEVATOR SYSTEMS ***
+
+
+
+
+Produced by Chris Curnow, Joseph Cooper and the Online
+Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+</pre>
+
+
+
+
+<div class="figcenter"><img src="images/icover.jpg" alt="" /></div>
+
+<p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p>
+<div class="title">
+<p class="right"><span class="smcap">Contributions from</span></p>
+<p class="right"><span class="smcap">The Museum of History and Technology:</span></p>
+<p class="right"><span class="smcap">Paper 19</span></p>
+<p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p>
+<p class="right"><span class="smcap">Elevator Systems</span></p>
+<p class="right"><span class="smcap">of the Eiffel Tower, 1889</span></p>
+<p class="right"><i>Robert M. Vogel</i></p>
+<p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p></div>
+
+<div class="right">
+<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="5" summary="Table of Contents">
+<tr><td><span style="margin-left: 7em;"><span class="smcaplc">PREPARATORY WORK FOR THE TOWER</span></span></td><td><span class="spacer">&nbsp;</span></td><td align="right"><a href="#prepwork">4</a></td></tr>
+<tr><td><span class="smcaplc">THE TOWER&#8217;S STRUCTURAL RATIONALE</span></td><td>&nbsp;</td><td align="right"><a href="#structure">5</a></td></tr>
+<tr><td><span class="smcaplc">ELEVATOR DEVELOPMENT BEFORE THE TOWER</span></td><td>&nbsp;</td><td align="right"><a href="#development">6</a></td></tr>
+<tr><td><span class="smcaplc">THE TOWER&#8217;S ELEVATORS</span></td><td>&nbsp;</td><td align="right"><a href="#elevators">20</a></td></tr>
+<tr><td><span class="smcaplc">EPILOGUE</span></td><td>&nbsp;</td><td align="right"><a href="#epilogue">37</a></td></tr></table>
+</div>
+
+<p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p>
+<hr style="width: 65%;" />
+<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_2" id="Page_2">[Pg 2]</a></span></p>
+<h2>ELEVATOR SYSTEMS of the EIFFEL TOWER, 1889</h2>
+<h3>By Robert M. Vogel</h3>
+
+<div class="blockquot"><p><i>This article traces the evolution of the powered passenger elevator
+from its initial development in the mid-19th century to the
+installation of the three separate elevator systems in the Eiffel
+Tower in 1889. The design of the Tower&#8217;s elevators involved problems
+of capacity, length of rise, and safety far greater than any
+previously encountered in the field; and the equipment that resulted
+was the first capable of meeting the conditions of vertical
+transportation found in the just emerging skyscraper.</i></p>
+
+<p><span class="smcap">The Author</span>: <i>Robert M. Vogel is associate curator of mechanical and
+civil engineering, United States National Museum, Smithsonian
+Institution.</i></p></div>
+
+<p>&nbsp;</p>
+<p class="dropcap"><span class="caps">The 1,000-foot tower</span> that formed the focal point and central feature of
+the Universal Exposition of 1889 at Paris has become one of the best known
+of man&#8217;s works. It was among the most outstanding technological
+achievements of an age which was itself remarkable for such achievements.</p>
+
+<p>Second to the interest shown in the tower&#8217;s structural aspects was the
+interest in its mechanical organs. Of these, the most exceptional were the
+three separate elevator systems by which the upper levels were made
+accessible to the Exposition visitors. The design of these systems
+involved problems far greater than had been encountered in previous
+elevator work anywhere in the world. The basis of these difficulties was
+the amplification of the two conditions that were the normal determinants
+in elevator design&mdash;passenger capacity and height of rise. In addition,
+there was the problem, totally new, of fitting elevator shafts to the
+curvature of the Tower&#8217;s legs. The study of the various solutions to these
+problems presents a concise view of the capabilities of the elevator art
+just prior to the beginning of the most recent phase of its development,
+marked by the entry of electricity into the field.</p>
+
+<p>The great confidence of the Tower&#8217;s builder in his own engineering ability
+can be fully appreciated, however, only when notice is taken of one
+exceptional way in which the project differed from works of earlier
+periods as well as from contemporary ones. In almost every case, these
+other works had evolved, in a natural and progressive way, from a
+fundamental concept firmly based upon precedent. This was true of such
+notable structures of the time as the Brooklyn Bridge and, to a lesser
+extent, the Forth Bridge. For the design of his tower, there was virtually
+no experience in structural history from which Eiffel could draw other
+than a series of high piers that his own firm had designed earlier for
+railway bridges. It was these designs that led Eiffel to consider the
+practicality of iron structures of extreme height.</p>
+
+<p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p>
+<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_3" id="Page_3">[Pg 3]</a></span></p>
+<div class="figcenter"><img src="images/i005tmb.jpg" alt="" /></div>
+<p class="tmblink"><a href="images/i005.jpg">Larger Image</a></p>
+<p class="center">Figure 1.&mdash;The Eiffel Tower at the time of the<br />Universal Exposition
+of 1889 at Paris.<br />(From <i>La Nature</i>, June 29, 1889, vol. 17, p. 73.)</p>
+<p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p>
+<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_4" id="Page_4">[Pg 4]</a></span></p>
+<div class="figcenter"><img src="images/i006.jpg" alt="" /></div>
+<p class="center">Figure 2.&mdash;Gustave Eiffel (1832-1923).<br />(From Gustave
+Eiffel, <i>La Tour de Trois Cents M&egrave;tres</i>,<br />Paris, 1900, frontispiece.)</p>
+<p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p>
+
+<p>There was, it is true, some inspiration to be found in the paper projects
+of several earlier designers&mdash;themselves inspired by that compulsion which
+throughout history seems to have driven men to attempt the erection of
+magnificently high structures.</p>
+
+<p>One such inspiration was a proposal made in 1832 by the celebrated but
+eccentric Welsh engineer Richard Trevithick to erect a 1,000-foot,
+conical, cast-iron tower (<a href="#fig3">fig. 3</a>) to celebrate the passing of the Reform
+Bill. Of particular interest in light of the present discussion was
+Trevithick&#8217;s plan to raise visitors to the summit on a piston, driven
+upward within the structure&#8217;s hollow central tube by compressed air. It
+probably is fortunate for Trevithick&#8217;s reputation that his plan died
+shortly after this and the project was forgotten.</p>
+
+<p>One project of genuine promise was a tower proposed by the eminent
+American engineering firm of Clarke, Reeves &amp; Company to be erected at the
+Centennial Exhibition at Philadelphia in 1876. At the time, this firm was
+perhaps the leading designer and erector of iron structures in the United
+States, having executed such works as the Girard Avenue Bridge over the
+Schuylkill at Fairmount Park, and most of New York&#8217;s early elevated
+railway system. The company&#8217;s proposal (<a href="#fig4">fig. 4</a>) for a 1,000-foot shaft of
+wrought-iron columns braced by a continuous web of diagonals was based
+upon sound theoretical knowledge and practical experience. Nevertheless,
+the natural hesitation that the fair&#8217;s sponsors apparently felt in the
+face of so heroic a scheme could not be overcome, and this project also
+remained a vision.</p>
+
+
+<p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p>
+<hr style="width: 65%;" />
+<p><a name="prepwork" id="prepwork"></a></p>
+<h2>Preparatory Work for the Tower</h2>
+
+<p>In the year 1885, the Eiffel firm, which also had an extensive background
+of experience in structural engineering, undertook a series of
+investigations of tall metallic piers based upon its recent experiences
+with several lofty railway viaducts and bridges. The most spectacular of
+these was the famous Garabit Viaduct (1880-1884), which carries a railroad
+some 400 feet above the valley of the Truyere in southern France. While
+the 200-foot height of the viaduct&#8217;s two greatest piers was not startling
+even at that period, the studies proved that piers of far greater height
+were entirely feasible in iron construction. This led to the design of a
+395-foot pier, which, although never incorporated into a bridge, may be
+said to have been the direct basis for the Eiffel Tower.</p>
+
+<p>Preliminary studies for a 300-meter tower were made with the 1889 fair
+immediately in mind. With an assurance born of positive knowledge, Eiffel
+in June of 1886 approached the Exposition commissioners with the project.
+There can be no doubt that only the singular respect with which Eiffel was
+regarded not only by his profession but by the entire nation motivated the
+Commission to approve a plan which, in the hands of a figure of less
+stature, would have been considered grossly impractical.</p>
+
+<p>Between this time and commencement of the Tower&#8217;s construction at the end
+of January 1887, there arose one of the most persistently annoying of the
+numerous difficulties, both structural and social, which confronted Eiffel
+as the project advanced. In the wake of the initial enthusiasm&mdash;on the
+part of the fair&#8217;s Commission inspired by the desire to create a monument
+to French technological achievement, and on the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_5" id="Page_5">[Pg 5]</a></span> part of the majority of
+Frenchmen by the stirring of their imagination at the magnitude of the
+structure&mdash;there grew a rising movement of disfavor. The nucleus was, not
+surprisingly, formed mainly of the intelligentsia, but objections were
+made by prominent Frenchmen in all walks of life. The most interesting
+point to be noted in a retrospection of this often violent opposition was
+that, although the Tower&#8217;s every aspect was attacked, there was remarkably
+little criticism of its structural feasibility, either by the engineering
+profession or, as seems traditionally to be the case with bold and
+unprecedented undertakings, by large numbers of the technically uninformed
+laity. True, there was an undercurrent of what might be characterized as
+unease by many property owners in the structure&#8217;s shadow, but the most
+obstinate element of resistance was that which deplored the Tower as a
+mechanistic intrusion upon the architectural and natural beauties of
+Paris. This resistance voiced its fury in a flood of special newspaper
+editions, petitions, and manifestos signed by such lights of the fine and
+literary arts as De Maupassant, Gounod, Dumas <i>fils</i>, and others. The
+eloquence of one article, which appeared in several Paris papers in
+February 1887, was typical:</p>
+
+<div class="blockquot"><p>We protest in the name of French taste and the national art culture
+against the erection of a staggering Tower, like a gigantic kitchen
+chimney dominating Paris, eclipsing by its barbarous mass Notre Dame,
+the Sainte-Chapelle, the tower of St. Jacques, the D&ocirc;me des
+Invalides, the Arc de Triomphe, humiliating these monuments by an act
+of madness.<small><a name="f1.1" id="f1.1" href="#f1">[1]</a></small></p></div>
+
+<p>Further, a prediction was made that the entire city would become
+dishonored by the odious shadow of the odious column of bolted sheet iron.</p>
+
+<p>It is impossible to determine what influence these outcries might have had
+on the project had they been organized sooner. But inasmuch as the
+Commission had, in November 1886, provided 1,500,000 francs for its
+commencement, the work had been fairly launched by the time the
+protestations became loud enough to threaten and they were ineffectual.</p>
+
+<p>Upon completion, many of the most vigorous protestants became as vigorous
+in their praise of the Tower, but a hard core of critics continued for
+several years to circulate petitions advocating its demolition by the
+government. One of these critics, it was said&mdash;probably apocryphally&mdash;took
+an office on the first platform, that being the only place in Paris from
+which the Tower could not be seen.</p>
+
+<p>&nbsp;<a name="fig3" id="fig3"></a></p><p>&nbsp;</p>
+<div class="figcenter"><img src="images/i009.jpg" alt="" /></div>
+<p class="center">Figure 3.&mdash;<ins class="correction" title="original reads 'Trevethick's'">Trevithick&#8217;s</ins> proposed cast-iron tower (1832)<br />
+would have been 1,000 feet high, 100 feet in diameter at the base,<br />12 feet
+at the top, and surmounted by a colossal statue.<br />(From F. Dye, <i>Popular Engineering</i>, London, 1895, p. 205.)</p>
+
+
+<p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p>
+<hr style="width: 65%;" />
+<p><a name="structure" id="structure"></a></p>
+<h2>The Tower&#8217;s Structural Rationale</h2>
+
+<p>During the previously mentioned studies of high piers undertaken by the
+Eiffel firm, it was established that as the base width of these piers
+increased in proportion to their height, the diagonal bracing connecting
+the vertical members, necessary for rigidity, became so long as to be
+subject to high flexural stresses from wind and columnar loading. To
+resist these stresses, the bracing required extremely large sections which
+greatly increased the surface of the structure exposed to the wind, and
+was, moreover, decidedly uneconomical. To overcome this difficulty, the
+principle which became the basic design concept of the Tower was
+developed.</p>
+
+<p>The material which would otherwise have been used for the continuous
+lattice of diagonal bracing was concentrated in the four corner columns of
+the Tower, and these verticals were connected only at<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_6" id="Page_6">[Pg 6]</a></span> two widely
+separated points by the deep bands of trussing which formed the first and
+second platforms. A slight curvature inward was given to the main piers to
+further widen the base and increase the stability of the structure. At a
+point slightly above the second platform, the four members converged to
+the extent that conventional bracing became more economical, and they were
+joined.</p>
+
+<p>&nbsp;<a name="fig4" id="fig4"></a></p><p>&nbsp;</p>
+<div class="figcenter"><img src="images/i010.jpg" alt="" /></div>
+<p class="center">Figure 4.&mdash;The proposed 1,000-foot iron tower designed by<br />
+Clarke, Reeves &amp; Co. for the Centennial Exhibition of 1876 at
+Philadelphia.<br />(From <i>Scientific American</i>, Jan. 24, 1874, vol. 30, p. 47.)</p>
+<p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p>
+
+<p>That this theory was successful not only practically, but visually, is
+evident from the resulting work. The curve of the legs and the openings
+beneath the two lower platforms are primarily responsible for the Tower&#8217;s
+graceful beauty as well as for its structural soundness.</p>
+
+<p>The design of the Tower was not actually the work of Eiffel himself but of
+two of his chief engineers, Emile Nouguier (1840-?) and Maurice K&oelig;chlin
+(1856-1946)&mdash;the men who had conducted the high pier studies&mdash;and the
+architect St&eacute;phen Sauvestre (1847-?).</p>
+
+<p>In the planning of the foundations, extreme care was used to ensure
+adequate footing, but in spite of the Tower&#8217;s light weight in proportion
+to its bulk, and the low earth pressure it exerted, uneven pier settlement
+with resultant leaning of the Tower was considered a dangerous
+possibility.<small><a name="f2.1" id="f2.1" href="#f2">[2]</a></small> To compensate for this eventuality, a device was used
+whose ingenious directness justifies a brief description. In the base of
+each of the 16 columns forming the four main legs was incorporated an
+opening into which an 800-ton hydraulic press could be placed, capable of
+raising the member slightly. A thin steel shim could then be inserted to
+make the necessary correction (<a href="#fig5">fig. 5</a>). The system was used only during
+construction to overcome minor erection discrepancies.</p>
+
+<p>In order to appreciate fully the problem which confronted the Tower&#8217;s
+designers and sponsors when they turned to the problem of making its
+observation areas accessible to the fair&#8217;s visitors, it is first necessary
+to investigate briefly the contemporary state of elevator art.</p>
+
+
+<p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p>
+<hr style="width: 65%;" />
+<p><a name="development" id="development"></a></p>
+<h2>Elevator Development before the Tower</h2>
+
+<p>While power-driven hoists and elevators in many forms had been used since
+the early years of the 19th century, the ever-present possibility of
+breakage of the hoisting rope restricted their use almost entirely to the
+handling of goods in mills and warehouses.<small><a name="f3.1" id="f3.1" href="#f3">[3]</a></small> Not until the invention of a
+device which would positively prevent this was there much basis for work
+on other elements of the system. The first workable mechanism to prevent
+the car from dropping to the bottom of the hoistway in event of rope
+failure was the product of Elisha G. Otis (1811-1861), a mechanic of
+Yonkers, New York. The invention was made more or less as a matter of
+course along with the other machinery for a new mattress factory of which
+Otis was master mechanic.</p>
+
+<p>&nbsp;<a name="fig5" id="fig5"></a></p><p>&nbsp;</p>
+<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_7" id="Page_7">[Pg 7]</a></span></p>
+<div class="figcenter"><img src="images/i012a.jpg" alt="" /></div>
+<p class="center">Figure 5.&mdash;Correcting erection discrepancies by raising pier member&mdash;with
+hydraulic press and hand pump&mdash;and inserting shims.<br />(From <i>La Nature</i>, Feb. 18, 1888, vol. 16, p. 184.)</p>
+<p><a name="fig6" id="fig6"></a>&nbsp;</p>
+<div class="figcenter"><img src="images/i012b.jpg" alt="" /></div>
+<p class="center">Figure 6.&mdash;The promenade beneath the Eiffel Tower, 1889. (From <i>La Nature</i>, Nov. 30, 1889, vol. 17, p. 425.)</p>
+
+<p><a name="fig7" id="fig7"></a>&nbsp;</p>
+<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_8" id="Page_8">[Pg 8]</a></span></p>
+<div class="figcenter"><img src="images/i013.jpg" alt="" /></div>
+<p class="center">Figure 7.&mdash;Teagle elevator in an English mill about 1845. Power was taken from
+the line shafting.<br />(From <i>Pictorial Gallery of Arts</i>, Volume of Useful Arts, London, n.d. [ca. 1845].)</p>
+<p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p>
+
+<p>The importance of this invention soon became evident to Otis, and he
+introduced his device to the public three years later during the second
+season of the New York Crystal Palace Exhibition, in 1854. Here he would
+demonstrate dramatically the perfect safety of his elevator by cutting the
+hoisting rope of a suspended platform on which he himself stood, uttering
+the immortal words which have come to be inseparably associated with the
+history of the elevator&mdash;&#8220;All safe, gentlemen!&#8221;<small><a name="f4.1" id="f4.1" href="#f4">[4]</a></small></p>
+
+<p>The invention achieved popularity slowly, but did find increasing favor in
+manufactories throughout the eastern United States. The significance of
+Otis&#8217; early work in this field lay strictly in the safety features of his
+elevators rather than in the hoisting equipment. His earliest systems were
+operated by machinery similar to that of the teagle elevator in which the
+hoisting drum was driven from the mill shafting by simple fast and loose
+pulleys with crossed and straight belts to raise, lower, and stop. This
+scheme, already common at the time, was itself a direct improvement on the
+ancient hand-powered drum hoist.</p>
+
+<p>The first complete elevator machine in the United States, constructed in
+1855, was a complex and inefficient contrivance built around an
+oscillating-cylinder steam engine. The advantages of an elevator system
+independent of the mill drive quickly became apparent, and by 1860
+improved steam elevator machines were being produced in some quantity, but
+almost exclusively for freight service. It is not clear when the first
+elevator was installed explicitly for passenger service, but it was
+probably in 1857, when Otis placed one in a store on Broadway at Broome
+Street in New York.</p>
+
+<p>In the decade following the Civil War, tall buildings had just begun to
+emerge; and, although the skylines of the world&#8217;s great cities were still
+dominated by church spires, there was increasing activity in the
+development of elevator apparatus adapted to the transportation of people
+as well as of merchandise. Operators of hotels and stores gradually became
+aware of the commercial advantages to be gained by elevating their patrons
+even one or two floors above the ground, by machinery. The steam engine
+formed the foundation of the early elevator industry, but as building
+heights increased it was gradually replaced by hydraulic, and ultimately
+by electrical, systems.</p>
+
+<p>&nbsp;</p>
+<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_9" id="Page_9">[Pg 9]</a></span></p>
+<h3>THE STEAM ELEVATOR</h3>
+
+<p>The progression from an elevator machine powered by the line shafting of a
+mill to one in which the power source was independent would appear a
+simple and direct one. Nevertheless, it was about 40 years after the
+introduction of the powered elevator before it became common to couple
+elevator machines directly to separate engines. The multiple belt and
+pulley transmission system was at first retained, but it soon became
+evident that a more satisfactory service resulted from stopping and
+reversing the engine itself, using a single fixed belt to connect the
+engine and winding mechanism. Interestingly, the same pattern was followed
+40 years later when the first attempts were made to apply the electric
+motor to elevator drive.</p>
+
+<p>&nbsp;<a name="fig8" id="fig8"></a></p><p>&nbsp;</p>
+<div class="figcenter"><img src="images/i016.jpg" alt="" /></div>
+<p class="center">Figure 8.&mdash;In the typical steam elevator machine two
+vertical cylinders<br />were situated either above or below the crankshaft, and
+a small pulley<br />was keyed to the crankshaft. In a light-duty machine, the
+power was<br />transmitted by flatbelt from the small pulley to a larger one
+mounted<br />directly on the drum. In heavy-duty machines, spur gearing was<br />
+interposed between the large secondary pulley and the winding drum.<br />(Photo courtesy of Otis Elevator Company.)</p>
+<p>&nbsp;</p>
+<div class="figcenter"><img src="images/i017.jpg" alt="" /></div>
+<p class="center">Figure 9.&mdash;Several manufacturers built steam machines in
+which a gear<br />on the drum shaft meshed directly with a worm on the
+crankshaft. This<br />arrangement eliminated the belt, and, since the drum
+could not drive the<br />engine through the worm gearing, no brake was
+necessary for holding the load.<br />(Courtesy of Otis Elevator Company.)</p>
+<p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p>
+
+<div class="figleft"><img src="images/i018tmb.jpg" alt="" /><br />
+<small><a href="images/i018.jpg">Larger Image</a></small><br />
+Figure 10.&mdash;Components of the<br />steam passenger elevator at
+the time of its peak<br />development and use (1876).<br />(From <i>The First One
+Hundred Years</i>,<br />Otis Elevator Company, 1953.)</div>
+
+<p>By 1870 the steam elevator machine had attained its ultimate form, which,
+except for a number of minor refinements, was to remain unchanged until
+the type became completely obsolete toward the end of the century.</p>
+
+<p>By the last quarter of the century, a continuous series of improvements in
+the valving, control systems, and safety features of the steam machine had
+made possible an elevator able to compete with the subsequently appearing
+hydraulic systems for freight and low-rise passenger service insofar as
+smoothness, control, and lifting power were concerned. However, steam
+machinery began to fail in this competition as the increasing height of
+buildings rapidly extended the demands of speed and length of rise.</p>
+
+<p>The limitation in rise constituted the most serious shortcoming of the
+steam elevator (<a href="#fig8">figs. 8-10</a>), an inherent defect that did not exist in the
+various hydraulic systems.</p>
+
+<p>Since the only practical way in which the power of a steam engine could be
+applied to the haulage of elevator cables was through a rotational system,
+the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_10" id="Page_10">[Pg 10]</a></span> cables invariably were wound on a drum. The travel or rise of the car
+was therefore limited by the cable capacity of the winding drum. As
+building heights increased, drums became necessarily longer and larger
+until they grew so cumbersome as to impose a serious limitation upon
+further upward growth. A drum machine rarely could be used for a lift of
+more than 150 feet.<small><a name="f5.1" id="f5.1" href="#f5">[5]</a></small></p>
+
+<p>Another organic difficulty existing in drum machines was the dangerous
+possibility of the car&mdash;or the counterweight, whose cables often wound on
+the drum&mdash;being drawn past the normal top limit and into the upper
+supporting works. Only safety stops could prevent such an occurrence if
+the operator failed to stop the car at the top or bottom of the shaft, and
+even these were not always effective. Hydraulic machines were not
+susceptible to this danger, the piston or plunger being arrested by the
+ends of the cylinder at the extremes of travel.</p>
+
+<p>&nbsp;</p>
+<p class="center"><big><b>THE HYDRAULIC ELEVATOR</b></big></p>
+
+<p>The rope-geared hydraulic elevator, which was eventually to become known
+as the &#8220;standard of the industry,&#8221; is generally thought to have evolved
+directly from an invention of the English engineer Sir William Armstrong
+(1810-1900) of ordnance fame. In 1846 he developed a water-powered crane,
+utilizing the hydraulic head available from a reservoir on a hill 200 feet
+above.</p>
+
+<p>The system was not basically different from the simple hydraulic press so
+well known at the time. Water, admitted to a horizontal cylinder,
+displaced a piston and rod to which a sheave was attached. Around the
+sheave passed a loop of chain, one end of which was fixed, the other
+running over guide sheaves and terminating at the crane arm with a lifting
+hook. As the piston was pressed into the cylinder, the free end of the
+chain was drawn up at triple the piston speed, raising the load. The
+effect was simply that <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_11" id="Page_11">[Pg 11]</a></span>of a 3-to-1 tackle, with the effort and load
+elements reversed. Simple valves controlled admission and exhaust of the
+water. (See <a href="#fig11">fig. 11</a>.)</p>
+
+<p>&nbsp;<a name="fig11" id="fig11"></a></p><p>&nbsp;</p>
+<div class="figcenter"><img src="images/i019.jpg" alt="" /></div>
+<p class="center">Figure 11.&mdash;Armstrong&#8217;s hydraulic crane. The main cylinder
+was inclined, permitting gravity to assist in overhauling the hook.<br />The
+small cylinder rotated the crane. (From John H. Jallings, <i>Elevators</i>, Chicago, 1916, p. 82.)</p>
+<p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p>
+
+<p>The success of this system initiated a sizable industry in England, and
+the hydraulic crane, with many modifications, was in common use there for
+many years. Such cranes were introduced in the United States in about 1867
+but never became popular; they did, however, have a profound influence on
+the elevator art, forming the basis of the third generic type to achieve
+widespread use in this country.</p>
+
+<p>The ease of translation from the Armstrong crane to an elevator system
+could hardly have been more evident, only two alterations of consequence
+being necessary in the passage. A guided platform or car was substituted
+for the hook; and the control valves were connected to a stationary
+endless rope that was accessible to an operator on the car.</p>
+
+<p>The rope-geared hydraulic system (<a href="#fig13">fig. 13</a>) appeared in mature form in
+about 1876. However, before it had become the &#8220;standard elevator&#8221; through
+a process of refinement, another system was introduced which merits notice
+if for no other reason than that its popularity for some years seems
+remarkable in view of its preposterously unsafe design. Patented by Cyrus
+W. Baldwin of Boston in January 1870, this system was termed the
+Hydro-Atmospheric Elevator, but more commonly known as the water-balance
+elevator (<a href="#fig12">fig. 12</a>). It employed water not under pressure but simply as
+mass under the influence of gravity. The elevator car&#8217;s supporting cables
+ran over sheaves at the top of the shaft to a large iron bucket, which
+traveled in a closed tube or well adjacent to and the same length as the
+shaft. To raise the car, the operator caused a valve to open, filling the
+bucket with water from a roof tank. When the weight of water was
+sufficient to overbalance the loaded car, the bucket descended, raising
+the car. On its ascent the car was stopped at intermediate floors by a
+strong brake that gripped the guides. Upon reaching the top, the operator
+was able to open a valve in the bucket, now at the bottom of its travel,
+and discharge its contents into a basement tank, to be pumped back to the
+roof. No longer counterbalanced, the car could descend, its speed
+controlled solely by the brake.</p>
+
+<p>The great popularity of this novel system apparently was due to its smooth
+operation, high speed, simplicity, and economy of operation. Managed by a
+skillful<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_12" id="Page_12">[Pg 12]</a></span> operator, it was capable of speeds far greater than other
+systems could then achieve&mdash;up to a frightening 1,800 feet per minute.<small><a name="f6.1" id="f6.1" href="#f6">[6]</a></small></p>
+<p><a name="fig12" id="fig12"></a></p>
+<div class="figleft"><img src="images/i022tmb.jpg" alt="" /><br />
+<small><a href="images/i022.jpg">Larger Image</a></small><br />
+Figure 12.&mdash;Final development of the<br />
+Baldwin-Hale water balance elevator, 1873.<br />
+The brake, kept applied by powerful springs,<br />
+was released only by steady pressure on a lever.<br />
+There were two additional controls&mdash;the<br />
+continuous rope that opened the cistern valve to fill<br />
+the bucket, and a second lever to open the<br />
+valve of the bucket to empty it. (From<br />
+<i>United States Railroad and Mining Register</i>,<br />Apr. 12, 1873, vol. 17, p. 3.)</div>
+<p><a name="fig13" id="fig13"></a></p>
+<div class="figright"><img src="images/i023tmb.jpg" alt="" /><br />
+<small><a href="images/i023.jpg">Larger Image</a></small><br />
+Figure 13.&mdash;Vertical cylinder,<br />
+rope-geared hydraulic elevator with 2:1<br />
+gear ratio and rope control (about 1880).<br />
+For higher rises and speeds, ratios of<br />
+up to 10:1 were used, and the endless rope<br />
+was replaced by a lever.<br />(Courtesy of Otis Elevator Company.)</div>
+
+<p>In addition to the element of potential danger from careless operation or
+failure of the brake, the Baldwin system was extremely expensive to
+install as a result of the second shaft, which of course was required to
+be more or less watertight.</p>
+
+<p>Much of the water-balance elevator&#8217;s development and refinement was done
+by William E. Hale of Chicago, who also made most of the installations.
+The system has, therefore, come to bear his name more commonly than
+Baldwin&#8217;s.</p>
+
+<p>The popularity of the water-balance system waned after only a few years,
+being eclipsed by more rational systems. Hale eventually abandoned it and
+became the western agent for Otis&mdash;by this time prominent in the
+field&mdash;and subsequently was influential in development of the hydraulic
+elevator.</p>
+
+<p>The rope-geared system of hydraulic elevator operation was so basically
+simple that by 1880 it had been embraced by virtually all manufacturers.
+However, for years most builders continued to maintain a line of steam and
+belt driven machines for freight service. Inspired by the rapid increase
+of taller and taller buildings, there was a concentrated effort,
+heightened by severe competition, to refine the basic system.</p>
+
+<p>By the late 1880&#8217;s a vast number of improvements in detail had appeared,
+and this form of elevator was considered to be almost without defect. It
+was safe. Absence of a drum enabled the car to be carried by a number of
+cables rather than by one or two, and rendered overtravel impossible. It
+was fast. Control devices had received probably the most attention by
+engineers and were as perfect and sensitive as was <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_13" id="Page_13">[Pg 13]</a></span>possible with
+mechanical means. Cars with lever control could be run at the high speeds
+required for high buildings, yet they could be stopped with a smoothness
+and precision unattainable earlier with systems in which the valves were
+controlled by an endless rope, worked by the operator. It was almost
+completely silent, and when the cylinder was placed vertically in a well
+near the shaft, practically no valuable floor space was occupied. But most
+important, the length of rise was unlimited because no drum was used. As
+greater rises were required, the multiplication of the ropes and sheaves
+was simply increased, raising the piston-car travel ratio and permitting
+the cylinder to remain of manageable length. The ratio was often as high
+as 10 or 12 to 1, the car moving 10 or 12 feet to the piston&#8217;s 1.</p>
+
+<p>In addition to its principal advantages, the hydraulic elevator could be
+operated directly from municipal water mains in the many cities where
+there was sufficient pressure, thus eliminating a large investment in
+tanks, pumps and boilers (<a href="#fig14">fig. 14</a>).</p>
+
+<p>By far the greatest development in this specialized branch of mechanical
+engineering occurred in the United States. The comparative position of
+American practice, which will be demonstrated farther on, is indicated by
+the fact that Otis Brothers and other large elevator concerns in the
+United States were able to establish offices in many of the major cities
+of Europe and compete very successfully with local firms in spite of the
+higher costs due to shipment. This also demonstrates the extent of error
+in the oft-heard statement that the skyscraper was the direct result of
+the elevator&#8217;s invention. There is no question that continued elevator
+improvement was an essential factor in the rapid increase of building
+heights. However, consideration of the situation in European cities, where
+buildings of over 10 stories were (and still are) rare in spite of the
+availability of similar elevator techniques, points to the fundamental
+matter of tradition. The European city simply did not develop with the
+lack of judicial restraint which characterized metropolitan growth in the
+United States. The American tendency to confine mercantile activity to the
+smallest possible area resulted in excessive land values, which drove
+buildings skyward.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_14" id="Page_14">[Pg 14]</a></span> The elevator followed, or, at most, kept pace with,
+the development of higher buildings.</p>
+
+<p>&nbsp;<a name="fig14" id="fig14"></a></p><p>&nbsp;</p>
+<div class="figcenter"><img src="images/i024.jpg" alt="" /></div>
+<p class="center">Figure 14.&mdash;In the various hydraulic systems, a pump was required if<br />
+pressure from water mains was insufficient to operate the elevator directly.<br />
+There was either a gravity tank on the roof or a pressure tank in the basement.<br />
+(From Thomas E. Brown, Jr., &#8220;The American Passenger Elevator,&#8221;<br /><i>Engineering Magazine</i> (New York), June 1893, vol. 5, p. 340.)</p>
+<p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p>
+
+<p>European elevator development&mdash;notwithstanding the number of American
+rope-geared hydraulic machines sold in Europe in the 10 years or so
+preceding the Paris fair of 1889&mdash;was confined mainly to variations on the
+direct plunger type, which was first used in English factories in the
+1830&#8217;s. The plunger elevator (<a href="#fig16">fig. 16</a>), an even closer derivative of the
+hydraulic press <ins class="correction" title="original reads 'then'">than</ins> Armstrong&#8217;s crane, was nothing more than a platform
+on the upper end of a vertical plunger that rose from a cylinder as water
+was forced in.</p>
+
+<p>There were two reasons for this European practice. The first and most
+apparent was the rarity of tall buildings. The drilling of a well to
+receive the cylinder was thus a matter of little difficulty. This well had
+to be equivalent in depth to the elevator rise. The second reason was an
+innate European distrust of cable-hung elevator systems in any form, an
+attitude that will be discussed more fully farther on.</p>
+
+<p>&nbsp;</p>
+<h3>THE ELECTRIC ELEVATOR</h3>
+
+<p>At the time the Eiffel Tower elevators were under consideration, water
+under pressure was, from a practical standpoint, the only agent capable of
+fulfilling the power and control requirements of this particularly severe
+service. Steam, as previously mentioned, had already been found wanting in
+several respects. Electricity, on the other hand, seemed to hold promise
+for almost every field of human endeavor. By 1888 the electric motor had
+behind it a 10- or 15-year history of active development. Frank J. Sprague
+had already placed in successful operation a sizable electric trolley-car
+system, and was manufacturing motors of up to 20 horsepower in commercial
+quantity. Lighting generators were being produced in sizes far greater.
+There were, nevertheless, many obstacles preventing the translation of
+this progress into machinery capable of hauling large groups of people a
+vertical distance of 1,000 feet with unquestionable dependability.</p>
+
+<p>The first application of electricity to elevator propulsion was an
+experiment of the distinguished German electrician Werner von Siemens,
+who, in 1880, constructed a car that successfully climbed a rack by means
+of a motor and worm gearing beneath its deck (<a href="#fig17">figs. 17</a>, <a href="#fig18">18</a>)&mdash;again, the
+characteristic European distrust of cable suspension. However, the effect
+of this success on subsequent development was negligible. Significant use
+of electricity in this field occurred somewhat later, and in a manner
+parallel to that by which steam was first applied to the elevator&mdash;the
+driving of mechanical (belt driven) elevator machines by individual
+motors. Slightly later came another application of the &#8220;conversion&#8221; type.
+This was the simple substitution of electrically driven pumps (<a href="#fig21">fig. 21</a>)
+for steam pumps in hydraulic installations. It will be recalled that pumps
+were necessary in cases where water main pressure was insufficient to
+operate the elevator directly.</p>
+
+<p>In both of these cases the operational demands on the motor were of course
+identical to those on the prime movers which they replaced; no reversal of
+direction was necessary, the speed was constant, and the load was nearly
+constant. Furthermore, the load could be applied to the motor gradually
+through automatic relief valves on the pump and in the mechanical machines
+by slippage as the belt was shifted from the loose to the fast pulleys.
+The ultimate simplicity in control resulted from permitting the motor to
+run continuously, drawing current only in proportion to its loading. The
+direct-current motor of the 1880&#8217;s was easily capable of such service, and
+it was widely used in this way.</p>
+
+<p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p>
+<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_15" id="Page_15">[Pg 15]</a></span></p>
+<div class="figcenter"><img src="images/i026tmb.jpg" alt="" /><br />
+<a href="images/i026.jpg"><small>Larger Image</small></a><br />
+Figure 15.&mdash;Rope-geared hydraulic freight elevator<br />
+using a horizontal cylinder (about 1883).<br />
+(From a Lane &amp; Bodley illustrated catalog of hydraulic elevators, Cincinnati, n.d.)</div>
+
+<p>&nbsp;<a name="fig16" id="fig16"></a><a name="fig17" id="fig17"></a></p><p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_16" id="Page_16">[Pg 16]</a></span></p>
+
+<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="5" summary="images">
+<tr><td align="center">
+<img src="images/i027tmb.jpg" alt="" /><br />
+<a href="images/i027.jpg"><small>Larger Image</small></a><br />
+Figure 16.&mdash;English direct plunger<br />hydraulic elevator (about 1895).<br />
+(From F. Dye, <i>Popular Engineering</i>,<br />London, 1895, p. 280.)</td>
+<td>Adaptation of the motor to the direct drive of an elevator machine was
+quite another matter, the difficulties being largely those of control. At
+this time the only practical means of starting a motor under load was by
+introducing resistance into the circuit and cutting it out in a series of
+steps as the speed picked up; precisely the method used to start traction
+motors. In the early attempts to couple the motor directly to the winding
+drum through worm gearing, this &#8220;notching up&#8221; was transmitted to the car
+as a jerking motion, disagreeable to passengers and hard on machinery.
+Furthermore, the controller contacts had a short life because of the
+arcing which resulted from heavy starting currents. In all, such systems
+were unsatisfactory and generally unreliable, and were held in disfavor by
+both elevator experts and owners.</td>
+<td align="center"><img src="images/i028tmb.jpg" alt="" /><br />
+<a href="images/i028.jpg"><small>Larger Image</small></a><br />
+Figure 17.&mdash;Siemens&#8217; electric<br />rack-climbing elevator of 1880.<br />
+(From Werner von Siemens,<br /><i>Gesammelte Abhandlungen und Vortr&auml;ge</i>,<br />Berlin, 1881, pl. 5.)</td></tr></table>
+
+<p><a name="fig18" id="fig18"></a>&nbsp;</p>
+<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_17" id="Page_17">[Pg 17]</a></span></p>
+<div class="figright"><img src="images/i030tmb.jpg" alt="" /><br />
+<a href="images/i030.jpg"><small>Larger Image</small></a><br />
+Figure 18.&mdash;Motor and drive mechanism<br />of Siemens&#8217; elevator.<br />
+(From Alfred R. Urbanitzky,<br /><i>Electricity in the Service of Man</i>,<br />London, 1886, p. 646.)</div>
+
+<p>There was, moreover, little inducement to overcome the problem of control
+and other minor problems because of a more serious difficulty which had
+persisted since the days of steam. This was the matter of the drum and its
+attendant limitations. The motor&#8217;s action being rotatory, the winding drum
+was the only practical way in which to apply its motive power to hoisting.
+This single fact shut electricity almost completely out of any large-scale
+elevator business until after the turn of the century. True, there was a
+certain amount of development, after about 1887, of the electric
+worm-drive drum machine for slow-speed, low-rise service (<a href="#fig19">fig. 19</a>). But
+the first installation of this type that was considered practically
+successful&mdash;in that it was in continuous use for a long period&mdash;was not
+made until 1889,<small><a name="f7.1" id="f7.1" href="#f7">[7]</a></small> the year in which the Eiffel Tower was completed.</p>
+
+<p>Pertinent is the one nearly successful attempt which was made to approach
+the high-rise problem electrically. In 1888, Charles R. Pratt, an elevator
+engineer of Montclair, New Jersey, invented a machine based on the
+horizontal cylinder rope-geared hydraulic elevator, in which the two sets
+of sheaves were drawn apart by a screw and traveling nut. The screw was
+revolved directly by a Sprague motor, the system being known as the
+Sprague-Pratt. While a number of installations were made, the machine was
+subject to several serious mechanical faults and passed out of use around
+1900. Generally, electricity as a practical workable power for elevators
+seemed to hold little promise in 1888.<small><a name="f8.1" id="f8.1" href="#f8">[8]</a></small></p>
+
+<hr class="color" style="width: 10%;" />
+<p><a name="fig19" id="fig19"></a><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_18" id="Page_18">[Pg 18]</a></span></p>
+<div class="figcenter"><img src="images/i031tmb.jpg" alt="" /><br />
+<a href="images/i031.jpg"><small>Larger Image</small></a><br />
+Figure 19.&mdash;The electric elevator in its earliest commercial form (1891),<br />
+with the motor connected directly to the load. By this time, incandescent<br />
+lighting circuits in large cities were sufficiently extensive to make such<br />
+installations practical. However, capacity and lift were severely limited by<br />
+weaknesses of the control system and the necessity of using a drum.<br />
+(From <i>Electrical World</i>, Jan. 2, 1897, vol. 20, p. xcvii.)<br />
+<a href="#text19"><small>Image Text</small></a></div>
+<p><a name="fig20" id="fig20"></a>&nbsp;</p>
+<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_19" id="Page_19">[Pg 19]</a></span></p>
+<div class="figcenter"><img src="images/i032tmb.jpg" alt="" /><br />
+<a href="images/i032.jpg"><small>Larger Image</small></a><br />
+Figure 20.&mdash;Advertisement for the Miller screw-hoisting machine, about
+1867 (see p. <a href="#Page_23">23</a>).<br />From flyer in the United States National Museum.<br />
+<a href="#text20"><small>Image Text</small></a></div>
+
+
+<p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p>
+<hr style="width: 65%;" />
+<p><a name="fig21" id="fig21"></a>&nbsp;</p>
+<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_20" id="Page_20">[Pg 20]</a></span></p>
+<div class="figcenter"><img src="images/i033.jpg" alt="" /></div>
+<p class="center">Figure 21.&mdash;The first widespread use of electricity in the
+elevator field was to drive<br />belt-type mechanical machines and the pumps of
+hydraulic systems (see p. <a href="#Page_14">14</a>) as shown here.<br />(From <i>Electrical World</i>, Jan. 4, 1890, vol. 15, p. 4.)</p>
+<p><a name="elevators" id="elevators"></a>&nbsp;</p>
+
+<h2>The Tower&#8217;s Elevators</h2>
+
+<p>A great part of the Eiffel Tower&#8217;s worth and its <i>raison d&#8217;&ecirc;tre</i> lay in
+the overwhelming visual power by which it was to symbolize to a world
+audience the scientific, artistic, and, above all, the technical
+achievements of the French Republic. Another consideration, in Eiffel&#8217;s
+opinion, was its great potential value as a scientific observatory. At its
+summit grand experiments and observations would be possible in such fields
+as meteorology and astronomy. In this respect it was welcomed as a
+tremendous improvement over the balloon and steam winch that had been
+featured in this service at the 1878 Paris exposition. Experiments were
+also to be conducted on the electrical illumination of cities from great
+heights. The great strategic value of the Tower as an observation post
+also was recognized. But from the beginning, sight was never lost of the
+structure&#8217;s great value as an unprecedented public attraction, and its
+systematic exploitation in this manner played a part in its planning,
+second perhaps only to the basic design.</p>
+
+<div class="figright"><img src="images/i036tmb.jpg" alt="" /><br />
+<a href="images/i036.jpg"><small>Larger Image</small></a><br />
+Figure 22.&mdash;Various levels of the Eiffel Tower.<br />(Adapted from Gustave Eiffel,<br />
+<i>La Tour de Trois Cents M&egrave;tres</i>,<br />Paris, 1900, pl. 1.)</div>
+
+<p>The conveyance of multitudes of visitors to the Tower&#8217;s first or main
+platform and a somewhat lesser number to the summit was a technical
+problem whose seriousness Eiffel must certainly have been aware of at the
+project&#8217;s onset. While a few visitors could be expected to walk to the
+first or possibly second stage, 377 feet above the ground, the main means
+of transport obviously had to be elevators. Indeed, the two aspects of the
+Tower with which the Exposition commissioners were most deeply concerned
+were the adequate grounding of lightning and the provision of a reliable
+system of elevators, which they insisted be unconditionally safe.</p>
+
+<p>To study the elevator problem, Eiffel retained a man named Backmann who
+was considered an expert on the subject. Apparently Backmann originally
+was to design the complete system, but he was to prove inadequate to the
+task. As his few schemes are<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_21" id="Page_21">[Pg 21]</a></span> studied it becomes increasingly difficult to
+imagine by what qualifications he was regarded as either an elevator
+expert or designer by Eiffel and the Commission. His proposals appear,
+with one exception, to have been decidedly retrogressive, and, further, to
+incorporate the most undesirable features of those earlier systems he
+chose to borrow from. Nothing has been discovered regarding his work, if
+any, on elevators for the lower section of the Tower. Realizing the
+difficulty of this aspect of the problem, he may not have attempted its
+solution, and confined his work to the upper half where the structure
+permitted a straight, vertical run.</p>
+
+<p>The Backmann design for the upper elevators was based upon a principle
+which had been attractive to many inventors in the mid-19th century period
+of elevator development&mdash;that of &#8220;screwing the car up&#8221; by means of a
+threaded element and a nut, either of which might be rotated and the other
+remain stationary. The analogy to a nut and bolt made the scheme an
+obvious one at that early time, but its inherent complexity soon became
+equally evident and it never achieved practical success. Backmann
+projected two cylindrical cars that traveled in parallel shafts and
+balanced one another from opposite ends of common cables that passed over
+a sheave in the upperworks. Around the inside of each shaft extended a
+spiral track upon which ran rollers attached to revolving frames
+underneath the cars. When the frames were made to revolve, the rollers,
+running around the track, would raise or lower one car, the other
+traveling in the opposite direction (<a href="#fig23">fig. 23</a>).</p>
+
+<p>In the plan as first presented, a ground-based steam engine drove the
+frames and rollers through an endless fly rope&mdash;traveling at high speed
+presumably to permit it to be of small diameter and still transmit a
+reasonable amount of power&mdash;which engaged pulleys on the cars. The design
+was remarkably similar to that of the Miller Patent Screw Hoisting
+Machine, which had had a brief life in the United States around 1865. The
+Miller system (see p. <a href="#Page_19">19</a>) used a flat belt rather than a rope (<a href="#fig20">fig. 20</a>).
+This plan was quickly rejected, probably because of anticipated
+difficulties with the rope transmission.<small><a name="f9.1" id="f9.1" href="#f9">[9]</a></small></p>
+
+<p>&nbsp;<a name="fig23" id="fig23"></a></p><p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_22" id="Page_22">[Pg 22]</a></span>&nbsp;</p>
+<div class="figcenter"><img src="images/i037.jpg" alt="" /></div>
+<p class="center">Figure 23.&mdash;Backmann&#8217;s proposed helicoidal elevator for the
+upper section of the Eiffel Tower.<br />The cars were to be self-powered by
+electric motors. Note similarity to the Miller system (<a href="#fig20">fig. 20</a>).<br />(Adapted
+from <i>The Engineer</i> (London), Aug. 3, 1888, vol. 66, p. 101.)</p>
+<p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_23" id="Page_23">[Pg 23]</a></span>Backmann&#8217;s second proposal, actually approved by the Commission,
+incorporated the only&mdash;although highly significant&mdash;innovation evident in
+his designs. For the rope transmission, electric motors were substituted,
+one in each car to drive the roller frame directly. With this
+modification, the plan does not seem quite as unreasonable, and would
+probably have worked. However, it would certainly have lacked the
+necessary durability and would have been extremely expensive. The
+Commission discarded the whole scheme about the middle of 1888, giving two
+reasons for its action: (1) the novelty of the system and the attendant
+possibility of stoppages which might seriously interrupt the &#8220;exploitation
+of the Tower,&#8221; and (2) fear that the rollers running around the tracks
+would cause excessive noise and vibration. Both reasons seem quite
+incredible when the Backmann system is compared to one of those actually
+used&mdash;the Roux, described below&mdash;which obviously must have been subject to
+identical failings, and on a far greater scale. More likely there existed
+an unspoken distrust of electric propulsion.</p>
+
+<p>That the Backmann system should have been given serious consideration at
+all reflects the uncertainty surrounding the entire matter of providing
+elevator service of such unusual nature. Had the Eiffel Tower been erected
+only 15 years later, the situation would have been simply one of
+selection. As it was, Eiffel and the commissioners were governed not by
+what they wanted but largely by what was available.</p>
+
+<p>&nbsp;</p>
+<h3>THE OTIS SYSTEM</h3>
+
+<p>The curvature of the Tower&#8217;s legs imposed a problem unique in elevator
+design, and it caused great annoyance to Eiffel, the fair&#8217;s Commission,
+and all others concerned. Since a vertical shaftway anywhere within the
+open area beneath the first platform was esthetically unthinkable, the
+elevators could be placed only in the inclined legs. The problem of
+reaching the first platform was not serious. The legs were wide enough and
+their curvature so slight in this lower portion as to permit them to
+contain a straight run of track, and the service could have been designed
+along the lines of an ordinary inclined railway. It was estimated that the
+great majority of visitors would go only to this level, attracted by the
+several international restaurants, bars and other features located there.
+Two elevators to operate only that far were contracted for with no
+difficulty&mdash;one to be placed in the east leg and one in the west.</p>
+
+<p>To transport people to the second platform was an altogether different
+problem. Since there was to be a single run from the ground, it would have
+been necessary to form the elevator guides either with a constant
+curvature, approximating that of the legs, or with a series of straight
+chords connected by short segmental curves of small radius. Eiffel planned
+initially to use the first method, but the second was adopted ultimately,
+probably as being the simpler because only two straight lengths of run
+were found to be necessary.</p>
+
+<p>Bids were invited for two elevators on this basis&mdash;one each for the north
+and south legs. Here the unprecedented character of the matter became
+evident&mdash;there was not a firm in France willing to undertake the work. The
+American Elevator Company, the European branch of Otis Brothers &amp; Company,
+did submit a proposal through its Paris office, Otis Ascenseur Cie., but
+the Commission was compelled to reject it because a clause in the fair&#8217;s
+charter prohibited the use of any foreign material in the construction of
+the Tower. Furthermore, there was a strong prejudice against foreign
+contractors, which, because of the general background of disfavor
+surrounding the project during its early stages, was an element worth
+serious consideration by the Commission. The bidding time was extended,
+and many attempts were made to attract a native design but none was
+forthcoming.</p>
+<p><a name="fig24" id="fig24"></a></p>
+<div class="figright"><img src="images/i040tmb.jpg" alt="" /><br />
+<a href="images/i040.jpg"><small>Larger Image</small></a><br />
+Figure 24.&mdash;General arrangement of<br />Otis elevator system in
+Eiffel Tower.<br />(From <i>The Engineer</i> (London),<br />July 19, 1889, vol. 68, p. 58.)</div>
+
+<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_24" id="Page_24">[Pg 24]</a></span>As time grew short, it became imperative to resolve the matter, and the
+Commission, in desperation, awarded the contract to Otis in July 1887 for
+the amount of $22,500.<small><a name="f10.1" id="f10.1" href="#f10">[10]</a></small> A curious footnote to the affair appeared much
+later in the form of a published interview<small><a name="f11.1" id="f11.1" href="#f11">[11]</a></small> with W. Frank Hall, Otis&#8217;
+Paris representative:</p>
+
+<div class="blockquot"><p>&#8220;Yes,&#8221; said Mr. Hall, &#8220;this is the first elevator of its kind. Our
+people for thirty-eight years have been doing this work, and have
+constructed thousands of elevators vertically, and many on an
+incline, but never one to strike a radius of 160 feet for a distance
+of over 50 feet. It has required a great amount of preparatory study
+and we have worked on it for three years.&#8221;</p>
+
+<p>&#8220;That was before you got the contract?&#8221;</p>
+
+<p>&#8220;Quite so, but we knew that, although the French authorities were
+very reluctant to give away this piece of work, they would be bound
+to come to us, and so we were preparing for them.&#8221;</p></div>
+
+<p>Such supreme confidence must have rapidly evaporated as events progressed.
+Despite the invaluable advertising to be derived from an installation of
+such distinction, the Otises would probably have defaulted had they
+foreseen the difficulties which preceded completion of the work.</p>
+
+<p>The proposed system (<a href="#fig24">fig. 24</a>) was based fundamentally upon Otis&#8217; standard
+hydraulic elevator, but it was recognizable only in basic operating
+principle (<a href="#fig25">fig. 25</a>). Tracks of regular rail section replaced the guides
+because of the incline, and the double-decked cabin (<a href="#fig29">fig. 29</a>) ran on small
+flanged wheels. This much of the apparatus was really not unlike that of
+an ordinary inclined railway. Motive power was provided by the customary
+hydraulic cylinder (<a href="#fig26">fig. 26</a>), set on an angle roughly equal to the incline
+of the lower section of run. Balancing the cabin&#8217;s dead weight was a
+counterpoise carriage (<a href="#fig27">fig. 27</a>) loaded with pig iron that traveled on a
+second set of rails beneath the main track. Like the driving system, the
+counterweight was rope-geared, 3 to 1, so that its travel was about 125
+feet to the cabin&#8217;s 377 feet.</p>
+
+<p>Everything about the system was on a scale far heavier than found in the
+normal elevator of the type. The cylinder, of 38-inch bore, was 36 feet
+long. Rather than a simple nest of pulleys, the piston rods pulled a large
+guided carriage or &#8220;chariot&#8221; bearing six movable sheaves (<a href="#fig28">fig. 28</a>).
+Corresponding were five stationary sheaves, the whole reeved to form an
+immense 12-purchase tackle. The car, attached to the free ends of the
+cables, was hauled up as the piston drew the two sheave assemblies apart.</p>
+
+<p>&nbsp;<a name="fig25" id="fig25"></a></p><p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_25" id="Page_25">[Pg 25]</a></span>&nbsp;</p>
+<div class="figcenter"><img src="images/i041.jpg" alt="" /></div>
+<p class="center">Figure 25.&mdash;Schematic diagram of the rigging of the Otis
+system.<br />(Adapted from Gustave Eiffel, <i>La Tour de Trois Cents M&egrave;tres</i>, Paris, 1900, p. 127.)</p>
+<p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p>
+
+<p>In examining the system, it is difficult to determine what single element
+in its design might have caused such a problem as to have been beyond the
+engineering ability of a French firm, and to have caused such concern to a
+large, well-established American organization of Otis&#8217; wide elevator and
+inclined railway experience. Indeed, when the French system&mdash;which served
+the first platform from the east and west legs&mdash;is examined, it appears
+curious that a national technology capable of producing a machine at such
+a level of complexity should have been unable to deal easily with the
+entire matter. This can be plausibly explained only on the basis of
+Europe&#8217;s previously mentioned lack of experience with rope-geared and
+other cable-hung elevator systems. The difficulty attending Otis&#8217; work,
+usually true in the case of all innovations, lay unquestionably in the
+multitudes of details&mdash;many of them, of course, invisible when only the
+successfully working end product is observed.</p>
+
+<p>More than a matter of detail was the Commission&#8217;s demand for perfect
+safety, which precipitated a situation typical of many confronting Otis
+during the entire work. Otis had wished to coordinate the entire design
+process through Mr. Hall, with technical matters handled by mail.
+Nevertheless, at Eiffel&#8217;s insistence, and with some inconvenience, in 1888
+the company dispatched the project&#8217;s engineer, Thomas E. Brown, Jr., to
+Paris for a direct consultation. Mild conflict over minor details ensued,
+but a gross difference of opinion arose ultimately between the American
+and French engineers over the safety of the system. The disagreement
+threatened to halt the entire project. In common with all elevators in
+which the car hangs by cables, the prime consideration here was a means of
+arresting the cabin should the cables fail. As originally presented to
+Eiffel, the plans indicated an elaborate modification of the standard Otis
+safety device&mdash;itself a direct derivative of E. G. Otis&#8217; original.</p>
+
+<p>If any one of the six hoisting cables broke or stretched unduly, or if
+their tension slackened for any reason, powerful leaf springs were
+released causing brake shoes to grip the rails. The essential feature of
+the design was the car&#8217;s arrest by friction between its grippers and the
+rails so that the stopping action was gradual, not sudden as in the
+elevator safety. During proof trials of the safety, made prior to the
+fair&#8217;s opening by cutting away a set of temporary hoisting cables, the
+cabin would fall about 10 feet before being halted.</p>
+
+<p>&nbsp;<a name="fig26" id="fig26"></a></p><p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_26" id="Page_26">[Pg 26]</a></span></p>
+<div class="figcenter"><img src="images/i043tmb.jpg" alt="" /><br />
+<a href="images/i043.jpg"><small>Larger Image</small></a></div>
+<p class="center">Figure 26.&mdash;Section through the Otis power cylinder.<br />
+(Adapted from Gustave Eiffel, <i>La Tour de Trois Cents M&egrave;tres</i>, Paris, 1900, pl. 22.)</p>
+<p>&nbsp;<a name="fig27" id="fig27"></a></p><p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_27" id="Page_27">[Pg 27]</a></span>&nbsp;</p>
+<div class="figcenter"><img src="images/i044tmb.jpg" alt="" /><br />
+<a href="images/i044.jpg"><small>Larger Image</small></a></div>
+<p class="center">Figure 27.&mdash;Details of the counterweight carriage in the Otis system.<br />
+(From Gustave Eiffel, <i>La Tour de Trois Cents M&egrave;tres</i>, Paris, 1900, pl. 22<sup>4</sup>.)</p>
+<p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p>
+
+<p>Although highly efficient and of unquestionable security, this safety
+device was considered an insufficient safeguard by Eiffel, who, speaking
+in the name of the Commission, demanded the application of a device known
+as the rack and pinion safety that was used to some extent on European cog
+railways. The commissioners not only considered this system more reliable
+but felt that one of its features was a necessity: a device that
+permitted the car to be lowered by hand, even after failure of all the
+hoisting cables. The serious shortcomings of the rack and pinion were its
+great noisiness and the limitation it imposed on hoisting speed. Both
+disadvantages were due to the constant engagement of a pinion on the car
+with a continuous rack set between the rails. The meeting ended in an
+impasse, with Brown unwilling to approve the objectionable apparatus and
+able only to return to New York and lay the matter before his company.</p>
+
+<p>While Eiffel&#8217;s attitude in the matter may appear highly unreasonable, it
+must be said that during a subsequent meeting between Brown and
+K&oelig;chlin, the French engineer implied that a mutual antagonism had
+arisen between the Tower&#8217;s creator and the Commission. Thus, since his own
+judgment must have had little influence with the commissioners at that
+time, Eiffel was compelled to specify what he well knew were excessive
+safety provisions.</p>
+
+<p>This decision placed Otis Brothers in a decidedly uncomfortable position,
+at the mercy of the Commission. W. E. Hale, promoter of the water balance
+elevator&mdash;who by then had a strong voice in Otis&#8217; affairs&mdash;expressed the
+seriousness of the matter in a letter to the company&#8217;s president, Charles
+R. Otis, following receipt of Brown&#8217;s report on the Paris conference.
+Referring to the controversial cogwheel, Hale wrote</p>
+
+<div class="blockquot"><p>... if this must be arranged so that the car is effected [sic] in its
+operation by constant contact with the rack and pinion ... so as to
+communicate the noise and jar, and unpleasant motion which such an
+arrangement always produces, I should favor giving up the whole
+matter rather than allying ourselves with any such abortion.... we
+would be the laughing stock of the world, for putting up such a
+contrivance.</p></div>
+
+<p>This difficult situation apparently was the product of a somewhat general
+contract phrased in terms of service to be provided rather than of
+specific equipment to be used. This is not unusual, but it did leave open
+to later dispute such ambiguous clauses as &#8220;adequate safety devices are to
+be provided.&#8221;</p>
+
+<p>Although faced with the loss not only of all previously expended design
+work but also of an advertisement of international consequence, the
+company apparently concurred with Hale and so advised Paris.
+Unfortunately, there are no Otis records to reveal the subsequent
+transactions, but we may assume that Otis&#8217; threat of withdrawal prevailed,
+coupled as it was with Eiffel&#8217;s confidence in the American equipment. The
+system went into operation as originally designed, free of the odious rack
+and pinion.</p>
+
+<p>That, unfortunately, was not the final disagreement. Before the fair&#8217;s
+opening in May 1889, the relationship was strained so drastically that a
+mutually satisfactory conclusion to the project must indeed have seemed
+hopeless. The numerous minor structural modifications of the Tower legs
+found necessary as construction progressed had necessitated certain
+equivalent alteration to the Otis design insofar as its dependency upon<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_28" id="Page_28">[Pg 28]</a></span>
+the framework was affected. Consequently, work on the machinery was set
+back by some months. Eiffel was informed that although everything was
+guaranteed to be in full operation by opening day on May 1, the
+contractual deadline of January 1 could not possibly be met. Eiffel, now
+unquestionably acting on his own volition, responded by cable, refusing
+all payment. Charles Otis&#8217; reply, a classic of indignation, disclosed to
+Eiffel the jeopardy in which his impetuosity had placed the success of the
+entire project:</p>
+
+<div class="blockquot"><p>After all else we have borne and suffered and achieved in your
+behalf, we regard this as a trifle too much; and we do not hesitate
+to declare, in the strongest terms possible to the English language,
+that we will not put up with it ... and, if there is to be War, under
+the existing circumstances, propose that at least part of it shall be
+fought on American ground. If Mr. Eiffel shall, on the contrary,
+treat us as we believe we are entitled to be treated, under the
+circumstances, and his confidence in our integrity to serve him well
+shall be restored in season to admit of the completion of this work
+at the time wanted, well and good; but it must be done at once ...
+otherwise we shall ship no more work from this side, and Mr. Eiffel
+must charge to himself the consequences of his own acts.</p></div>
+
+<p>This message apparently had the desired effect and the matter was somehow
+resolved, as the machinery was in full operation when the Exposition
+opened. The installation must have had immense promotional value for Otis
+Brothers, particularly in its contrast to the somewhat anomalous French
+system. This contrast evidently was visible to the technically
+unsophisticated as well as to visiting engineers. Several newspapers
+reported that the Otis elevators were one of the best American exhibits at
+the fair.</p>
+
+<p>In spite of their large over-all scale and the complication of the basic
+pattern imposed by the unique situation, the Otis elevators performed well
+and justified the original judgment and confidence which had prompted
+Eiffel to fight for their installation. Aside from the obvious advantage
+of simplicity when compared to the French machines, their operation was
+relatively quiet, and fast.</p>
+
+<p>The double car, traveling at 400 feet per minute, carried 40 persons, all
+seated because of the change of inclination. The main valve or distributor
+that controlled the flow of water to and from the driving cylinder was
+operated from the car by cables. The hydraulic head necessary to produce
+pressure within the cylinder was obtained from a large open reservoir on
+the second platform. After being exhausted from the cylinder, the water
+was pumped back up by two Girard pumps (<a href="#fig31">fig. 31</a>) in the engine room at
+the base of the Tower&#8217;s south leg.</p>
+
+<p>&nbsp;</p>
+<h3>THE SYSTEM OF ROUX, COMBALUZIER AND LEPAPE</h3>
+
+<p>There can be little doubt that the French elevators placed in the east and
+west piers to carry visitors to the first stage of the Tower had the
+important secondary function of saving face. That an engineer of Eiffel&#8217;s
+mechanical perception would have permitted their use, unless compelled to
+do so by the Exposition Commission, is unthinkable. Whatever the attitudes
+of the commissioners may have been, it must be said&mdash;recalling the
+Backmann system&mdash;that they did not fear innovation. The machinery
+installed by the firm of Roux, Combaluzier and Lepape was novel in every
+respect, but it was a product of misguided ingenuity and set no precedent.
+The system, never duplicated, was conceived, born, lived a brief and not
+overly creditable life, and died, entirely within the Tower.</p>
+
+<p>Basis of the French system was an endless chain of short, rigid,
+articulated links (<a href="#fig35">fig. 35</a>), to one point of which the car was attached.
+As the chain moved, the car was raised or lowered. Recalling the European
+distrust of suspended elevators, it is interesting to note that the car
+was pushed up by the links below, not drawn by those above, thus the
+active links were in compression. To prevent buckling of the column, the
+chain was enclosed in a conduit (<a href="#fig36">fig. 36</a>). Excessive friction was
+prevented by a pair of small rollers at each of the knuckle joints between
+the links. The system was, in fact, a duplicate one, with a chain on
+either side of the car. At the bottom of the run the chains passed around
+huge sprocket wheels, 12.80 feet in diameter, with pockets on their
+peripheries to engage the joints. Smaller wheels at the top guided the
+chains.</p>
+
+<p>If by some motive force the wheel (<a href="#fig33">fig. 33</a>) were turned counterclockwise,
+the lower half of the chain would be driven upward, carrying the car with
+it. Slots on the inside faces of the lower guide trunks permitted passage
+of the connection between the car and chain. Lead weights on certain links
+of the chains&#8217; upper or return sections counterbalanced most of the car&#8217;s
+dead weight.</p>
+
+<p><a name="fig28" id="fig28"></a>&nbsp;</p><p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_29" id="Page_29">[Pg 29]</a></span>&nbsp;</p>
+<div class="figcenter"><img src="images/i049toptmb.jpg" alt="" /><br />
+<a href="images/i049top.jpg"><small>Larger Image</small></a></div>
+<p>&nbsp;</p>
+<div class="figcenter"><img src="images/i049bottomtmb.jpg" alt="" /><br />
+<a href="images/i049bottom.jpg"><small>Larger Image</small></a></div>
+<p class="center">Figure 28.&mdash;Plan and section of the Otis system&#8217;s movable
+pulley assembly, or chariot. Piston rods are at left.<br />(Adapted from <i>The
+Engineer</i> (London), July 19, 1889, vol. 68, p. 58.)</p>
+<p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p>
+
+<p>Two horizontal cylinders rotated the driving sprockets through a mechanism
+whose effect was similar to the rope-gearing of the standard hydraulic
+elevator, but which might be described as chain gearing. The cylinders
+were of the pushing rather than the pulling type used in the Otis system;
+that is, the pressure was introduced behind the plungers, driving them
+out. To the ends of the plungers were fixed smooth-faced sheaves, over
+which were looped heavy quadruple-link pitch chains, one end of each being
+solidly attached to the machine base. The free ends ran under the cylinder
+and made another half-wrap around small sprockets keyed to the main drive
+shaft. As the plungers were forced outward, the free ends of the chain
+moved in the opposite direction, at twice the velocity and linear
+displacement of the plungers. The drive sprockets were thereby revolved,
+driving up the car. Descent was made simply by permitting the cylinders to
+exhaust, the car dropping of its own weight. The over-all gear or ratio of
+the system was the multiplication due to the double purchase of the
+plunger sheaves times the ratio of the chain and drive sprocket diameters:
+2(12.80/1.97) or about 13:1. To drive the car 218 feet to the first
+platform of the Tower the plungers traveled only about 16.5 feet.</p>
+
+<p>To penetrate the inventive rationale behind this strange machine is not
+difficult. Aware of the fundamental dictum of absolute safety before all
+else, the Roux engineers turned logically to the safest known elevator
+type&mdash;the direct plunger. This type of elevator, being well suited to low
+rises, formed the main body of European practice at the time, and in this
+fact lay the further attraction of a system firmly based on tradition.
+Since the piers between the ground and first platform could accommodate a
+straight, although inclined run, the solution might obviously have been to
+use an inclined, direct plunger. The only difficulty would have been that
+of drilling a 220-foot, inclined well for the cylinder. While a difficult
+problem, it would not have been insurmountable. What then was the reason
+for using a design vastly more complex? The only reasonable answer that
+presents itself is that the designers, working<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_30" id="Page_30">[Pg 30]</a></span> in a period before the
+Otis bid had been accepted, were attempting to evolve an apparatus capable
+of the complete service to the second platform. The use of a rigid direct
+plunger thus precluded, it became necessary to transpose the basic idea in
+order to adapt it to the curvature of the Tower leg, and at the same time
+retain its inherent quality of safety. Continuing the conceptual sequence,
+the idea of a plunger made in some manner flexible apparently suggested
+itself, becoming the heart of the Roux machines.</p>
+
+<p>&nbsp;<a name="fig29" id="fig29"></a></p><p>&nbsp;</p>
+<div class="figcenter"><img src="images/i052.jpg" alt="" /></div>
+<p class="center">Figure 29.&mdash;Section through cabin of the Otis elevator.
+Note the pivoted floor-sections.<br />As the car traveled, these floor-sections
+were leveled by the operator to compensate<br />for the change of inclination;
+however, they were soon removed because they interfered<br />with the loading
+and unloading of passengers. (From <i>La Nature</i>, May 4, 1889, vol. 17, p. 360.)</p>
+<p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p>
+
+<p>Here then was a design exhibiting strange contrast. It was on the one hand
+completely novel, devised expressly for this trying service; yet on the
+other hand it was derived from and fundamentally based on a thoroughly
+traditional system. If nothing else, it was safe beyond question. In
+Eiffel&#8217;s own words, the Roux lifts &#8220;not only were safe, but appeared
+safe; a most desirable feature in lifts traveling to such heights and
+carrying the general public.&#8221;<small><a name="f12.1" id="f12.1" href="#f12">[12]</a></small></p>
+
+<p>The system&#8217;s shortcomings could hardly be more evident. Friction resulting
+from the more than 320 joints in the flexible pistons, each carrying two
+rollers, plus that from the pitch chains must have been immense. The noise
+created by such multiplicity of parts can only be imagined. Capacity was
+equivalent to that of the Otis system. About 100 people could be carried
+in the double-deck cabin, some standing. The speed, however, was only 200
+feet per minute, understandably low.</p>
+
+<p>If it had been the initial intention of the designers to operate their
+cars to the second platform, they must shortly have become aware of the
+impracticability of this plan, caused by an inherent characteristic of the
+apparatus. As long as the compressive force acted along the longitudinal
+axis of the links, there was no lateral resultant and the only load on the
+small rollers was that due to the dead weight of the link itself. However,
+if a curve had been introduced in the guide channels to increase the
+incline of the upper run, as done by Otis, the force on those links
+traversing the bend would have been eccentric&mdash;assuming the car to be in
+the upper section, above the bend. The difference between the two sections
+(based upon the Otis system) was 78&deg;9&prime; minus 54&deg;35&prime;, or 23&deg;34&prime;, the
+tangent of which equals 0.436. Forty-three percent of the unbalanced
+weight of the car and load would then have borne upon the, say, 12 sets of
+rollers on the curve. The immense frictional load thus added to the entire
+system would certainly have made it dismally inefficient, if not actually
+unworkable.</p>
+
+<p>In spite of Eiffel&#8217;s public remarks regarding the safety of the Roux
+machinery, in private he did not trouble to conceal his doubts. Otis&#8217;
+representative, Hall, discussing this toward the end of Brown&#8217;s previously
+mentioned report, probably presented a fairly accurate picture of the
+situation. His comments were based on conversations with Eiffel and
+K&oelig;chlin:</p>
+
+<div class="blockquot"><p>Mr. Gibson, Mr. Hanning [who were other Otis employees] and myself
+came to the unanimous conclusion that Mr. Eiffel had been forced to
+order those other machines, from outside parties, against his own
+judgment: and that he was very much in doubt as to their being a
+practical success&mdash;and was, therefore, all the more anxious to put in
+our machines<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_31" id="Page_31">[Pg 31]</a></span> (which he did have faith in) ... and if the others ate
+up coal in proportions greatly in excess of ours, he would have it to
+say ... &#8220;Gentlemen, these are my choice of elevators, those are yours
+&amp;c.&#8221; There was a published interview ... in which Eiffel stated ...
+that he was to meet some American gentlemen the following day, who
+were to provide him with elevators&mdash;grand elevators, I think he
+said....</p></div>
+
+<p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p>
+<div class="figcenter"><img src="images/i054.jpg" alt="" /></div>
+<p class="center">Figure 30.&mdash;Upperworks and passenger platforms of the Otis
+system at second level.<br />(From <i>La Nature</i>, Aug. 10, 1889, vol. 17, p. 169.)</p>
+<p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p>
+
+<p>The Roux and the Otis systems both drew their water supply from the same
+tanks; also, each system used similar distributing valves (<a href="#fig32">fig. 32</a>)
+operated from the cars. Although no reports have been found of actual
+controlled tests comparing the efficiencies of the Otis and Roux systems,
+a general quantitative comparison may be made from the balance figures
+given for each (p. <a href="#Page_40">40</a>), where it is seen that 2,665 pounds of excess
+tractive effort were allowed to overcome the friction of the Otis
+machinery against 13,856 pounds for the Roux.</p>
+
+<p>&nbsp;</p>
+<h3>THE EDOUX SYSTEM</h3>
+
+<p>The section of the Tower presenting the least difficulty to elevator
+installation was that above the juncture of the four legs&mdash;from the second
+platform to the third, or observation, enclosure. There was no question
+that French equipment could perform this service. The run being perfectly
+straight and vertical, the only unusual demand upon contemporary elevator
+technology was the length of rise&mdash;525 feet.</p>
+
+<p>The system ultimately selected (<a href="#fig37">fig. 37</a>) appealed to the Commission
+largely because of a <ins class="correction" title="original reads 'smiliar'">similar</ins> one that had been installed in one tower of
+the famous Trocadero<small><a name="f13.1" id="f13.1" href="#f13">[13]</a></small> and which had been operating successfully for 10
+years. It was the direct plunger system of Leon Edoux, and was, for the
+time, far more rationally contrived than Backmann&#8217;s helicoidal system.
+Edoux, an old schoolmate of Eiffel&#8217;s, had built thousands of elevators in
+France and was possibly the country&#8217;s most successful inventor and
+manufacturer in the field. It is likely that he did not attempt to obtain
+the contract for the elevator equipment in the Tower legs, as his
+experience was based almost entirely on plunger systems, a type, as we
+have seen, not readily adaptable to that situation. What is puzzling was
+the failure of the Commission&#8217;s members to recognize sooner Edoux&#8217;s
+obvious ability to provide equipment for the upper run. It may have been
+due to their inexplicable confidence in Backmann.</p>
+
+<p>&nbsp;<a name="fig31" id="fig31"></a></p><p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_32" id="Page_32">[Pg 32]</a></span>&nbsp;</p>
+<div class="figcenter"><img src="images/i057.jpg" alt="" /></div>
+<p class="center">Figure 31.&mdash;The French Girard pumps that supplied the Otis
+and Roux systems.<br />(From <i>La Nature</i>, Oct. 5, 1889, vol. 17, p. 292.)</p>
+<p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p>
+
+<p>The direct plunger elevator was the only type in which European practice
+was in advance of American practice at this time. Not until the beginning
+of the 20th century, when hydraulic systems were forced into competition
+with electrical systems, was the direct plunger elevator improved in
+America to the extent of being practically capable of high rises and
+speeds. Another reason for its early disfavor in the United States was the
+necessity for drilling an expensive plunger well equal in length to the
+rise.<small><a name="f14.1" id="f14.1" href="#f14">[14]</a></small></p>
+
+<p>As mentioned, the most serious problem confronting Edoux was the extremely
+high rise of 525 feet. The Trocadero elevator, then the highest plunger
+machine in the world, traveled only about 230 feet. A secondary
+difficulty was the esthetic undesirability of permitting a plunger
+cylinder to project downward a distance equal to such a rise, which would
+have carried it directly into the center of the open area beneath the
+first platform (<a href="#fig6">fig. 6</a>). Both problems were met by an ingenious
+modification of the basic system. The run was divided into two equal
+sections, each of 262 feet, and two cars were used. One operated from the
+bottom of the run at the second platform level to an intermediate platform
+half-way up, while the other operated from this point to the observation
+platform near the top of the Tower. The two sections were of course
+parallel, but offset. A central guide, on the Tower&#8217;s center-line, running
+the entire 525 feet served both cars, with shorter guides on either
+side&mdash;one for the upper and one for the lower run. Thus, each car traveled
+only half the total distance. The two cars were connected, as in the
+Backmann system, by steel cables running over sheaves at the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_33" id="Page_33">[Pg 33]</a></span> top,
+balancing each other and eliminating the need for counterweights. Two
+driving rams were used. By being placed beneath the upper car, their
+cylinders extended downward only the 262 feet to the second platform and
+so did not project beyond the confines of the system itself.<small><a name="f15.1" id="f15.1" href="#f15">[15]</a></small> In making
+the upward or downward trip, the passengers had to change from one car to
+the other at the intermediate platform, where the two met and parted (<a href="#fig39">fig.
+39</a>). This transfer was the only undesirable feature of what was, on the
+whole, a thoroughly efficient and well designed work of elevator
+engineering.</p>
+
+<p>&nbsp;<a name="fig32" id="fig32"></a></p><p>&nbsp;</p>
+<div class="figcenter"><img src="images/i060.jpg" alt="" /></div>
+<p class="center">Figure 32.&mdash;The Otis distributor, with valves shown in
+motionless, neutral position.<br />Since the main valve at all times was
+subjected to the full operating pressure, it<br />was necessary to drive this
+valve with a servo piston. The control cable operated<br />only the servo
+piston&#8217;s valve. (Adapted from Gustave Eiffel, <i>La Tour de Trois</i><br /><i>Cents M&egrave;tres</i>, Paris, 1900, p. 130.)</p>
+<p>&nbsp;<a name="fig33" id="fig33"></a></p>
+<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_34" id="Page_34">[Pg 34]</a></span>&nbsp;</p>
+<div class="figcenter"><img src="images/i063tmb.jpg" alt="" /><br />
+<a href="images/i063.jpg"><small>Larger Image</small></a></div>
+<p class="center">Figure 33.&mdash;General arrangement of the Roux Combaluzier and Lepape elevator.</p>
+
+<p>&nbsp;</p><p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_35" id="Page_35">[Pg 35]</a></span>&nbsp;</p>
+<div class="figcenter"><img src="images/i064.jpg" alt="" /></div>
+<p class="center">Figure 34.&mdash;Roux, Combaluzier and Lepape machinery and
+cabin at the Tower&#8217;s base.<br />(From <i>La Nature</i>, Aug. 10, 1889, vol. 17, p. 168.)</p>
+
+<p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p>
+<p>In operation, water was admitted to the two cylinders from a tank on the
+third platform. The resultant hydraulic head was sufficient to force out
+the rams and raise the upper car. As the rams and car rose, the rising
+water level in the cylinders caused a progressive reduction of the
+available head. This negative effect was further heightened by the fact
+that, as the rams moved upward, less and less of their length was
+buoyed by the water within the cylinders, increasing their effective
+weight. These two factors were, however, exactly compensated for by the
+lengthening of the cables on the other side of the pulleys as the lower
+car descended. Perfect balance of the system&#8217;s dead load for any position
+of the cabins was, therefore, a quality inherent in its design. However,
+there were two extreme conditions of live loading which required
+consideration: the lower car full and the upper empty, or vice versa. To
+permit the upper car to descend under the first condition, the plungers
+were made sufficiently heavy, by the addition of cast iron at their lower
+ends, to overbalance the weight of a capacity load in the lower car. The
+second condition demanded simply that the system be powerful enough to
+lift the unbalanced weight of the plungers plus the weight of passengers
+in the upper car.</p>
+
+<p>As in the other systems, safety was a matter of prime importance. In this
+case, the element of risk lay in the possibility of the suspended car
+falling. The upper car, resting on the rams, was virtually free of such
+danger. Here again the influence of Backmann was felt&mdash;a brake of his
+design was applied (<a href="#fig38">fig. 38</a>). It was, true to form, a throwback, similar
+safety devices having proven unsuccessful much earlier. Attached to the
+lower car were two helically threaded vertical<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_36" id="Page_36">[Pg 36]</a></span> rollers, working within
+the hollow guides. Corresponding helical ribs in the guides rotated the
+rollers as the car moved. If the car speed exceeded a set limit, the
+increased resistance offered by the apparatus drove the rollers up into
+friction cups, slowing or stopping the car.</p>
+
+<p>&nbsp;<a name="fig35" id="fig35"></a><a name="fig36" id="fig36"></a></p><p>&nbsp;</p>
+<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="5" summary="figures">
+<tr><td align="center"><img src="images/i067.jpg" alt="" /></td><td><span class="spacer">&nbsp;</span></td><td align="center"><img src="images/i068.jpg" alt="" /></td></tr>
+<tr><td align="center">Figure 35.&mdash;Detail of links in the Roux system.<br />(From
+Gustave Eiffel, <i>La Tour de Trois Cents M&egrave;tres</i>,<br />Paris, 1900, p. 156.)</td><td>&nbsp;</td>
+<td align="center">Figure 36.&mdash;Section of guide trunks in the Roux system.<br />
+(From Gustave Eiffel, <i>La Tour de Trois Cents M&egrave;tres</i>,<br />Paris, 1900, p. 156.)</td></tr></table>
+<p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p>
+
+<p>The device was considered ineffectual by Edoux and Eiffel, who were aware
+that the ultimate safety of the system resulted from the use of supporting
+cables far heavier than necessary. There were four such cables, with a
+total sectional area of 15.5 square inches. The total maximum load to
+which the cables might be subjected was about 47,000 pounds, producing a
+stress of about 3,000 pounds per square inch compared to a breaking stress
+of 140,000 pounds per square inch&mdash;a safety factor of 46!<small><a name="f16.1" id="f16.1" href="#f16">[16]</a></small></p>
+
+<p>&nbsp;<a name="fig37" id="fig37"></a><a name="fig38" id="fig38"></a><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_37" id="Page_37">[Pg 37]</a></span></p><p>&nbsp;</p>
+<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="5" summary="figures">
+<tr><td align="center"><img src="images/i069tmb.jpg" alt="" /><br /><a href="images/i069.jpg"><small>Larger Image</small></a></td>
+<td><span class="spacer">&nbsp;</span></td><td align="center"><img src="images/i070.jpg" alt="" /></td></tr>
+<tr><td align="center">Figure 37.&mdash;Schematic diagram of the Edoux system.<br />(Adapted
+from Gustave Eiffel, <i>La Tour de Trois Cents M&egrave;tres</i>,<br />Paris, 1900, p. 175.)</td><td>&nbsp;</td>
+<td align="center">Figure 38.&mdash;Vertical section through lower (suspended)<br />Edoux car, showing Backmann
+helicoidal safety brake.<br />(Adapted from Gustave Eiffel, <i>La Tour Eiffel en 1900</i>,<br />Paris, 1902, p. 12.)</td></tr></table>
+<p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p>
+
+<p>A curiosity in connection with the Edoux system was the use of Worthington
+(American) pumps (<a href="#fig40">fig. 40</a>) to carry the water exhausted from the cylinders
+back to the supply tanks. No record has been found that might explain why
+this particular exception was made to the &#8220;foreign materials&#8221; stipulation.
+This exception is even more strange in view of Otis&#8217; futile request for
+the same pumps and the fact that any number of native machines must have
+been available. It is possible that Edoux&#8217;s personal influence was
+sufficient to overcome the authority of the regulation.</p>
+
+<p>&nbsp;<a name="fig39" id="fig39"></a><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_38" id="Page_38">[Pg 38]</a></span></p><p>&nbsp;</p>
+<div class="figcenter"><img src="images/i071a.jpg" alt="" /></div>
+<p class="center">Figure 39.&mdash;Passengers changing cars on Edoux elevator at
+intermediate platform.<br />(From <i>La Nature</i>, May 4, 1889, vol. 17, p. 361.)</p>
+<p><a name="fig40" id="fig40"></a>&nbsp;</p>
+<div class="figcenter"><img src="images/i071b.jpg" alt="" /></div>
+<p class="center">Figure 40.&mdash;Worthington tandem compound steam pumps, at
+base of the Tower&#8217;s south pier,<br />supplied water for the Edoux system. The
+tank was at 896 feet, but suction was taken from<br />the top of the cylinders
+at 643 feet; therefore, the pumps worked against a head of only<br />about 250
+feet. (From <i>La Nature</i>, Oct. 5, 1889, vol. 17, p. 293.)</p>
+
+<p>&nbsp;<a name="fig41" id="fig41"></a><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_39" id="Page_39">[Pg 39]</a></span></p><p>&nbsp;</p>
+<div class="figcenter"><img src="images/i072.jpg" alt="" /></div>
+<p class="center">Figure 41.&mdash;Recent view of lower car of the Edoux system,<br />
+showing slotted cylindrical guides that enclose the cables.</p>
+
+
+<p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p>
+<hr style="width: 65%;" />
+<p><a name="epilogue" id="epilogue"></a></p>
+<h2>Epilogue</h2>
+
+<p>In 1900, after the customary 11-year period, Paris again prepared for an
+international exposition, about 5 years too early to take advantage of the
+great progress made by the electric elevator. When the Roux machines, the
+weakest element in the Eiffel Tower system, were replaced at this time, it
+was by other hydraulics. Built by the well known French engineering
+organization of Fives-Lilles, the new machines were the ultimate in power,
+control, and general excellence of operation. As in the Otis system, the
+cars ran all the way to the second platform.</p>
+
+<p>The Fives-Lilles equipment reflected the advance of European elevator
+engineering in this short time. The machines were rope-geared and
+incorporated the elegant feature of self-leveling cabins which compensated
+for the varying track inclination. For the 1900 fair, the Otis elevator in
+the south pier was also removed and a wide stairway to the first platform
+built in its place. In 1912, 25 years after Backmann&#8217;s startling proposal
+to use electricity for his system, the remaining Otis elevator was
+replaced by a small electric one. This innovation was reluctantly
+introduced solely for the purpose of accommodating visitors in the winter
+when the hydraulic systems were shut<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_40" id="Page_40">[Pg 40]</a></span> down due to freezing weather. The
+electric elevator had a short life, being removed in 1922 when the number
+of winter visitors increased far beyond its capacity. However, the two
+hydraulic systems were modified to operate in freezing
+temperatures&mdash;presumably by the simple expedient of adding an
+antifreezing chemical to the water&mdash;and operation was placed on a
+year-round basis.</p>
+
+<p>Today the two Fives-Lilles hydraulic systems remain in full use; and
+visitors reach the Tower&#8217;s summit by Edoux&#8217;s elevator (<a href="#fig41">fig. 41</a>), which is
+all that remains of the original installation.</p>
+
+
+<div class="bbox">
+<p class="center"><span class="smcap">Balance of the Three Elevator Systems</span></p>
+
+<p class="center"><i>The Otis System</i></p>
+
+<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="5" summary="otis">
+<tr><td>Negative effect</td></tr>
+<tr><td><span style="margin-left: 2em;">
+Weight of cabin: 23,900 lb. &times; sin 78&deg;9&prime; (incline of upper run)</span></td><td><span class="spacer">&nbsp;</span></td><td align="right">23,390</td><td>lb.</td></tr>
+<tr><td><span style="margin-left: 2em;">
+Live load: 40 persons @150 lb. = 6,000 &times; sin 78&deg;9&prime;</span></td><td>&nbsp;</td><td align="right">5,872</td></tr>
+<tr><td>&nbsp;</td><td>&nbsp;</td><td align="right">&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;</td><td>&nbsp;</td><td align="right">&mdash; 29,262</td><td>lb.</td></tr>
+<tr><td>&nbsp;</td></tr>
+<tr><td>Positive effect</td></tr>
+<tr><td><span style="margin-left: 2em;">
+Counterweight: 55,000 &times; sin 54&deg;35&prime; (incline of lower run)</span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 8em;">&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;</span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 12em;">3 (rope gear ratio)</span></td><td>&nbsp;</td><td align="right">14,940</td><td>lb.</td></tr>
+<tr><td><span style="margin-left: 2em;">
+Weight of piston and chariot:  33,060 &times; sin 54&deg;35&prime;</span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 13.5em;">&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;</span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 15em;">12 (ratio)</span></td><td>&nbsp;</td><td align="right">2,245</td></tr>
+<tr><td><span style="margin-left: 2em;">
+Power: 156 p.s.i. &times; 1,134 sq. in. (piston area)</span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 5em;">&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;</span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 10em;">12 (ratio)</span></td><td>&nbsp;</td><td align="right">14,742</td><td>&nbsp;</td><td align="right">31,927 lb.</td></tr>
+<tr><td>&nbsp;</td></tr>
+<tr><td align="right">Excess to overcome friction</td><td>&nbsp;</td><td>&nbsp;</td><td>&nbsp;</td><td align="right">2,665 lb.</td></tr></table>
+
+
+<p>&nbsp;</p>
+<p class="center"><i>The Roux, Combaluzier and Lepape System</i></p>
+
+<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="5" summary="roux">
+<tr><td>Negative effect</td></tr>
+<tr><td><span style="margin-left: 2em;">
+Weight of cabin: 14,100 &times; sin 54&deg;35&prime;</span></td><td><span class="spacer">&nbsp;</span></td><td align="right">11,500</td><td>lb.</td></tr>
+<tr><td><span style="margin-left: 2em;">
+Live load: 100 persons @150 lb. = 15,000 &times; sin 54&deg;35&prime;</span></td><td>&nbsp;</td><td align="right">12,200</td></tr>
+<tr><td>&nbsp;</td><td>&nbsp;</td><td><span style="margin-left: 2em;">&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;</span></td><td>&nbsp;</td><td align="right">&mdash; 23,720</td><td>lb.</td></tr>
+<tr><td>&nbsp;</td></tr>
+<tr><td>Positive effect</td></tr>
+<tr><td><span style="margin-left: 2em;">
+Counterweight: 6,600 &times; sin 54&deg;35&prime;</span></td><td>&nbsp;</td><td align="right">5,380</td></tr>
+<tr><td><span style="margin-left: 2em;">
+Power: 156 p.s.i. &times; 2 (pistons) &times; 1,341.5 sq. in. (piston area)</span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 5.5em;">&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;</span><br />
+<span style="margin-left: 13em;">13 (ratio)</span></td><td>&nbsp;</td><td align="right">32,196<br />&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;</td><td>&nbsp;</td><td align="right">37,576 lb.<br />&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;</td></tr>
+<tr><td>&nbsp;</td></tr>
+<tr><td align="right">Excess to overcome friction</td><td>&nbsp;</td><td>&nbsp;</td><td>&nbsp;</td><td align="right">13,856 lb.</td></tr></table>
+
+<p class="center"><i>The Edoux System</i></p>
+
+<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="5" summary="edoux">
+<tr><td>Negative effect</td></tr>
+<tr><td><span style="margin-left: 2em;">
+Unbalanced weight of plungers (necessary to raise full lower car and weight</span><br /><span style="margin-left: 2em;">of cables on lower side)</span></td><td><span class="spacer">&nbsp;</span></td><td align="right">42,330</td><td>lb.</td></tr>
+<tr><td><span style="margin-left: 2em;">
+Live load: 60 persons @150 lb.</span></td><td>&nbsp;</td><td align="right">9,000<br />&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;</td><td>&nbsp;</td><td align="right">&mdash; 51,330 lb.</td></tr>
+<tr><td>&nbsp;</td></tr>
+<tr><td>Positive effect</td></tr>
+<tr><td><span style="margin-left: 2em;">
+Power: 227.5 p.s.i. &times; 2 (plungers) &times; 124 sq. in. (plunger area)</span></td><td>&nbsp;</td><td align="right">56,420 lb.</td></tr>
+<tr><td>&nbsp;</td><td>&nbsp;</td><td>&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;&mdash;</td></tr>
+<tr><td align="right">Excess to overcome friction</td><td>&nbsp;</td><td>&nbsp;</td><td>&nbsp;</td><td align="right">5,090 lb.</td></tr></table>
+</div>
+
+<p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p>
+<hr style="width: 65%;" />
+<p><b>Footnotes:</b></p>
+
+<p><a name="f1" id="f1" href="#f1.1">[1]</a> Translated from Jean A. Keim, <i>La Tour Eiffel</i>, Paris, 1950.</p>
+
+<p><a name="f2" id="f2" href="#f2.1">[2]</a> The foundation footings exerted a pressure on the earth of about 200
+pounds per square foot, roughly one-sixth that of the Washington Monument,
+then the highest structure in the world.</p>
+
+<p><a name="f3" id="f3" href="#f3.1">[3]</a> A type of elevator known as the &#8220;teagle&#8221; was in use in some multistory
+English factories by about 1835. From its description, this elevator
+appears to have been primarily for the use of passengers, but it
+unquestionably carried freight as well. The machine shown in <a href="#fig7">figure 7</a> had,
+with the exception of a car safety, all the features of later systems
+driven from line shafting&mdash;counterweight, control from the car, and
+reversal by straight and crossed belts.</p>
+
+<p><a name="f4" id="f4" href="#f4.1">[4]</a> The Otis safety, of which a modified form is still used, consisted
+essentially of a leaf wagon spring, on the car frame, kept strained by the
+tension of the hoisting cables. If these gave way, the spring, released,
+drove dogs into continuous racks on the vertical guides, holding the car
+or platform in place.</p>
+
+<p><a name="f5" id="f5" href="#f5.1">[5]</a> A notable exception was the elevator in the Washington Monument.
+Installed in 1880 for raising materials during the structure&#8217;s final
+period of erection and afterwards converted to passenger service, it was
+for many years the highest-rise elevator in the world (about 500 feet),
+and was certainly among the slowest, having a speed of 50 feet per minute.</p>
+
+<p><a name="f6" id="f6" href="#f6.1">[6]</a> Today, although not limited by the machinery, speeds are set at a
+maximum of about 1,400 feet per minute. If higher speeds were used, an
+impractically long express run would be necessary for starting and
+stopping in order to prevent an acceleration so rapid as to be
+uncomfortable to passengers and a strain on the equipment.</p>
+
+<p><a name="f7" id="f7" href="#f7.1">[7]</a> Two machines, by Otis, in the Demarest Building, Fifth Avenue and 33d
+Street, New York. They were in use for over 30 years.</p>
+
+<p><a name="f8" id="f8" href="#f8.1">[8]</a> Although the eventually successful application of electric power to
+the elevator did not occur until 1904, and therefore goes beyond the
+chronological scope of this discussion, it was of such importance insofar
+as current practice is concerned as to be worthy of brief mention. In that
+year the first gearless traction machine was installed by Otis in a
+Chicago theatre. As the name implies, the cables were not wrapped on a
+drum but passed, from the car, over a grooved sheave directly on the motor
+shaft, the other ends being attached to the counterweights. The result was
+a system of beautiful simplicity, capable of any rise and speed with no
+proportionate increase in the number or size of its parts, and free from
+any possibility of car or weights being drawn into the machinery. This
+system is still the only one used for rises of over 100 feet or so. By the
+time of its introduction, motor controls had been improved to the point of
+complete practicability.</p>
+
+<p><a name="f9" id="f9" href="#f9.1">[9]</a> Mechanical transmission of power by wire rope was a well developed
+practice at this time, involving in many instances high powers and
+distances up to a mile. To attempt this system in the Eiffel Tower,
+crowded with structural work, machinery and people, was another matter.</p>
+
+<p><a name="f10" id="f10" href="#f10.1">[10]</a> According to Otis Elevator Company, the final price, because of
+extras, was $30,000.</p>
+
+<p><a name="f11" id="f11" href="#f11.1">[11]</a> In <i>Pall Mall Gazette</i>, as quoted in <i>The Engineering and Building
+Record and the Sanitary Engineer</i>, May 25, 1889, vol. 19, p. 345.</p>
+
+<p><a name="f12" id="f12" href="#f12.1">[12]</a> From speech at annual summer meeting of Institution of Mechanical
+Engineers, Paris, 1889. Quoted in <i>Engineering</i>, July 5, 1889, vol. 48, p. 18.</p>
+
+<p><a name="f13" id="f13" href="#f13.1">[13]</a> Located near the Tower, built for the Paris fair of 1878.</p>
+
+<p><a name="f14" id="f14" href="#f14.1">[14]</a> Improved oil-well drilling techniques were influential in the intense
+but short burst of popularity enjoyed by direct plunger systems in the
+United States between 1899 and 1910. In New York, many such systems of
+200-foot rise, and one of 380 feet, were installed.</p>
+
+<p><a name="f15" id="f15" href="#f15.1">[15]</a> An obvious question arises here: What prevents a plunger 200 or 300
+feet long and no more than 16 inches in diameter from buckling under its
+compressive loading? The answer is simply that most of this length is not
+in compression but in tension. The Edoux rams, when fully extended,
+virtually hung from the upper car, sustained by the weight of 500 feet of
+cable on the other side of the sheaves. As the upper car descended this
+effect diminished, but as the rams moved back into the cylinders their
+unsupported length was correspondingly reduced.</p>
+
+<p><a name="f16" id="f16" href="#f16.1">[16]</a> M. A. Ansaloni, &#8220;The Lifts in the Eiffel Tower,&#8221; quoted in
+<i>Engineering</i>, July 5, 1889, vol. 48, p. 23. The strength of steel when
+drawn into wire is increased tremendously. Breaking stresses of 140,000
+p.s.i. were not particularly high at the time. Special cables with
+breaking stresses of up to 370,000 p.s.i. were available.</p>
+
+<hr style="width: 65%;" />
+<p>&nbsp;<a name="text19" id="text19"></a></p><p>&nbsp;</p>
+<p>Text <a href="#fig19">figure 19</a></p>
+<p class="center"><i>Morse, Williams &amp; Co.</i>,<br />
+<br />
+BUILDERS OF<br />
+PASSENGER<br />
+AND<br />
+FREIGHT<br />
+ELEVATORS.</p>
+<p>&nbsp;</p>
+<p class="center">ELECTRIC ELEVATOR.</p>
+<p>&nbsp;</p>
+<p class="center"><b>Write us for Circulars and Prices.</b></p>
+<p>&nbsp;</p>
+<p class="center">Main Office and Works, 1105 Frankford Avenue,<br />
+<b>PHILADELPHIA</b>.</p>
+<p>&nbsp;</p>
+<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="5" summary="offices">
+<tr><td>New York Office,</td><td><span class="spacer">&nbsp;</span></td><td>108 Liberty Street.</td></tr>
+<tr><td>New Haven  Office</td><td>&nbsp;</td><td>82 Church Street.</td></tr>
+<tr><td>Pittsburg  Office</td><td>&nbsp;</td><td>413 Fourth Avenue.</td></tr>
+<tr><td>Boston Office</td><td>&nbsp;</td><td>19 Pearl Street.</td></tr>
+<tr><td>Baltimore Office</td><td>&nbsp;</td><td>Builders&#8217; Exchange.</td></tr>
+<tr><td>Scranton  Office</td><td>&nbsp;</td><td>425 Spruce Street.</td></tr></table>
+
+
+<p>&nbsp;<a name="text20" id="text20"></a></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p>
+<p>Text <a href="#fig20">figure 20</a></p>
+
+<p class="center">MILLER&#8217;S PATENT<br />
+LIFE AND LABOR-SAVING<br />
+SCREW HOISTING MACHINE,<br />
+FOR THE USE OF<br />
+Stores, Hotels, Warehouses, Factories, Sugar Refineries, Packing Houses, Mills, Docks, Mines, &amp;c.<br />
+MANUFACTURED BY<br />
+CAMPBELL, WHITTIER &amp; CO., ROXBURY, MASS.<br />
+<i>Sole Agents for the New England States.</i></p>
+<p>&nbsp;</p>
+
+<p class="note">The above Engraving illustrates a very superior Hoisting Machine, designed
+for <i><b>Store and Warehouse Hoisting</b></i>. It is very simple in its construction,
+compact, durable, and not liable to get out of order. An examination of
+the Engraving will convince any one who has any knowledge of Machinery,
+that the screw is the only safe principle on which to construct a Hoisting
+Machine or Elevator.</p>
+
+
+<p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p>
+<hr style="width: 65%;" />
+<p><b>Transcriber&#8217;s Notes:</b></p>
+
+<p>The original text was printed with two columns per page.</p>
+
+<p>Images have been moved from the middle of a paragraph to the closest paragraph break, so the placement of page numbers in this text does not exactly match the original in some cases.</p>
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+<pre>
+
+
+
+
+
+End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of Elevator Systems of the Eiffel Tower,
+1889, by Robert M. Vogel
+
+*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK ELEVATOR SYSTEMS ***
+
+***** This file should be named 32282-h.htm or 32282-h.zip *****
+This and all associated files of various formats will be found in:
+        http://www.gutenberg.org/3/2/2/8/32282/
+
+Produced by Chris Curnow, Joseph Cooper and the Online
+Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net.
+
+
+Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions
+will be renamed.
+
+Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no
+one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation
+(and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without
+permission and without paying copyright royalties.  Special rules,
+set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to
+copying and distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works to
+protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark.  Project
+Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you
+charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission.  If you
+do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the
+rules is very easy.  You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose
+such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and
+research.  They may be modified and printed and given away--you may do
+practically ANYTHING with public domain eBooks.  Redistribution is
+subject to the trademark license, especially commercial
+redistribution.
+
+
+
+*** START: FULL LICENSE ***
+
+THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
+PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK
+
+To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free
+distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work
+(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project
+Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project
+Gutenberg-tm License (available with this file or online at
+http://gutenberg.org/license).
+
+
+Section 1.  General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm
+electronic works
+
+1.A.  By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm
+electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to
+and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property
+(trademark/copyright) agreement.  If you do not agree to abide by all
+the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy
+all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your possession.
+If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the
+terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or
+entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.
+
+1.B.  "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark.  It may only be
+used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who
+agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement.  There are a few
+things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works
+even without complying with the full terms of this agreement.  See
+paragraph 1.C below.  There are a lot of things you can do with Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement
+and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
+works.  See paragraph 1.E below.
+
+1.C.  The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation"
+or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic works.  Nearly all the individual works in the
+collection are in the public domain in the United States.  If an
+individual work is in the public domain in the United States and you are
+located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from
+copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative
+works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg
+are removed.  Of course, we hope that you will support the Project
+Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting free access to electronic works by
+freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of
+this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with
+the work.  You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by
+keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project
+Gutenberg-tm License when you share it without charge with others.
+
+1.D.  The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern
+what you can do with this work.  Copyright laws in most countries are in
+a constant state of change.  If you are outside the United States, check
+the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement
+before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or
+creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project
+Gutenberg-tm work.  The Foundation makes no representations concerning
+the copyright status of any work in any country outside the United
+States.
+
+1.E.  Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:
+
+1.E.1.  The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate
+access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently
+whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the
+phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the phrase "Project
+Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed,
+copied or distributed:
+
+This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with
+almost no restrictions whatsoever.  You may copy it, give it away or
+re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included
+with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org
+
+1.E.2.  If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived
+from the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is
+posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied
+and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees
+or charges.  If you are redistributing or providing access to a work
+with the phrase "Project Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the
+work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1
+through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the
+Project Gutenberg-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or
+1.E.9.
+
+1.E.3.  If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted
+with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
+must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional
+terms imposed by the copyright holder.  Additional terms will be linked
+to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works posted with the
+permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work.
+
+1.E.4.  Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm
+License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this
+work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm.
+
+1.E.5.  Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this
+electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
+prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with
+active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
+Gutenberg-tm License.
+
+1.E.6.  You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
+compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any
+word processing or hypertext form.  However, if you provide access to or
+distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than
+"Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official version
+posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.org),
+you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a
+copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon
+request, of the work in its original "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other
+form.  Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm
+License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.
+
+1.E.7.  Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,
+performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works
+unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
+
+1.E.8.  You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing
+access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided
+that
+
+- You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
+     the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method
+     you already use to calculate your applicable taxes.  The fee is
+     owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he
+     has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the
+     Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation.  Royalty payments
+     must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you
+     prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax
+     returns.  Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and
+     sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the
+     address specified in Section 4, "Information about donations to
+     the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation."
+
+- You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies
+     you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he
+     does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm
+     License.  You must require such a user to return or
+     destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium
+     and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of
+     Project Gutenberg-tm works.
+
+- You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any
+     money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the
+     electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days
+     of receipt of the work.
+
+- You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
+     distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works.
+
+1.E.9.  If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm
+electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set
+forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from
+both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael
+Hart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark.  Contact the
+Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below.
+
+1.F.
+
+1.F.1.  Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable
+effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread
+public domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm
+collection.  Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
+works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain
+"Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or
+corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual
+property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a
+computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by
+your equipment.
+
+1.F.2.  LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right
+of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project
+Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project
+Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all
+liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal
+fees.  YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT
+LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
+PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH F3.  YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE
+TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE
+LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR
+INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
+DAMAGE.
+
+1.F.3.  LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a
+defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can
+receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a
+written explanation to the person you received the work from.  If you
+received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with
+your written explanation.  The person or entity that provided you with
+the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a
+refund.  If you received the work electronically, the person or entity
+providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to
+receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund.  If the second copy
+is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further
+opportunities to fix the problem.
+
+1.F.4.  Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth
+in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS' WITH NO OTHER
+WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO
+WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTIBILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.
+
+1.F.5.  Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied
+warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages.
+If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the
+law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be
+interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by
+the applicable state law.  The invalidity or unenforceability of any
+provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.
+
+1.F.6.  INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the
+trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone
+providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance
+with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production,
+promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works,
+harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees,
+that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do
+or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg-tm
+work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any
+Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause.
+
+
+Section  2.  Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm
+
+Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of
+electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers
+including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers.  It exists
+because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from
+people in all walks of life.
+
+Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the
+assistance they need, are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's
+goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will
+remain freely available for generations to come.  In 2001, the Project
+Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure
+and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future generations.
+To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
+and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4
+and the Foundation web page at http://www.pglaf.org.
+
+
+Section 3.  Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
+Foundation
+
+The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit
+501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the
+state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal
+Revenue Service.  The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification
+number is 64-6221541.  Its 501(c)(3) letter is posted at
+http://pglaf.org/fundraising.  Contributions to the Project Gutenberg
+Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent
+permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's laws.
+
+The Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S.
+Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered
+throughout numerous locations.  Its business office is located at
+809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887, email
+business@pglaf.org.  Email contact links and up to date contact
+information can be found at the Foundation's web site and official
+page at http://pglaf.org
+
+For additional contact information:
+     Dr. Gregory B. Newby
+     Chief Executive and Director
+     gbnewby@pglaf.org
+
+
+Section 4.  Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg
+Literary Archive Foundation
+
+Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide
+spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of
+increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be
+freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest
+array of equipment including outdated equipment.  Many small donations
+($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt
+status with the IRS.
+
+The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating
+charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United
+States.  Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a
+considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up
+with these requirements.  We do not solicit donations in locations
+where we have not received written confirmation of compliance.  To
+SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any
+particular state visit http://pglaf.org
+
+While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we
+have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition
+against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who
+approach us with offers to donate.
+
+International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make
+any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
+outside the United States.  U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.
+
+Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation
+methods and addresses.  Donations are accepted in a number of other
+ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations.
+To donate, please visit: http://pglaf.org/donate
+
+
+Section 5.  General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
+works.
+
+Professor Michael S. Hart is the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm
+concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared
+with anyone.  For thirty years, he produced and distributed Project
+Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support.
+
+
+Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed
+editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S.
+unless a copyright notice is included.  Thus, we do not necessarily
+keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition.
+
+
+Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility:
+
+     http://www.gutenberg.org
+
+This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm,
+including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
+Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to
+subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.
+
+
+</pre>
+
+</body>
+</html>
+
diff --git a/32282-h/images/i005.jpg b/32282-h/images/i005.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..6347f09
--- /dev/null
+++ b/32282-h/images/i005.jpg
diff --git a/32282-h/images/i005tmb.jpg b/32282-h/images/i005tmb.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..f2389a8
--- /dev/null
+++ b/32282-h/images/i005tmb.jpg
diff --git a/32282-h/images/i006.jpg b/32282-h/images/i006.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..a8ab28d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/32282-h/images/i006.jpg
diff --git a/32282-h/images/i009.jpg b/32282-h/images/i009.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..1ee2adb
--- /dev/null
+++ b/32282-h/images/i009.jpg
diff --git a/32282-h/images/i010.jpg b/32282-h/images/i010.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..e0c5b19
--- /dev/null
+++ b/32282-h/images/i010.jpg
diff --git a/32282-h/images/i012a.jpg b/32282-h/images/i012a.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..99c5203
--- /dev/null
+++ b/32282-h/images/i012a.jpg
diff --git a/32282-h/images/i012b.jpg b/32282-h/images/i012b.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..8bb15f0
--- /dev/null
+++ b/32282-h/images/i012b.jpg
diff --git a/32282-h/images/i013.jpg b/32282-h/images/i013.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..2f16491
--- /dev/null
+++ b/32282-h/images/i013.jpg
diff --git a/32282-h/images/i016.jpg b/32282-h/images/i016.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..e189adb
--- /dev/null
+++ b/32282-h/images/i016.jpg
diff --git a/32282-h/images/i017.jpg b/32282-h/images/i017.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..1c79ee6
--- /dev/null
+++ b/32282-h/images/i017.jpg
diff --git a/32282-h/images/i018.jpg b/32282-h/images/i018.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..a1b523e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/32282-h/images/i018.jpg
diff --git a/32282-h/images/i018tmb.jpg b/32282-h/images/i018tmb.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..0cb6640
--- /dev/null
+++ b/32282-h/images/i018tmb.jpg
diff --git a/32282-h/images/i019.jpg b/32282-h/images/i019.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..06b8431
--- /dev/null
+++ b/32282-h/images/i019.jpg
diff --git a/32282-h/images/i022.jpg b/32282-h/images/i022.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..360b8e7
--- /dev/null
+++ b/32282-h/images/i022.jpg
diff --git a/32282-h/images/i022tmb.jpg b/32282-h/images/i022tmb.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..6cf3237
--- /dev/null
+++ b/32282-h/images/i022tmb.jpg
diff --git a/32282-h/images/i023.jpg b/32282-h/images/i023.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..b4aa9a9
--- /dev/null
+++ b/32282-h/images/i023.jpg
diff --git a/32282-h/images/i023tmb.jpg b/32282-h/images/i023tmb.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..3fc9eda
--- /dev/null
+++ b/32282-h/images/i023tmb.jpg
diff --git a/32282-h/images/i024.jpg b/32282-h/images/i024.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..f33429a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/32282-h/images/i024.jpg
diff --git a/32282-h/images/i026.jpg b/32282-h/images/i026.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..1145895
--- /dev/null
+++ b/32282-h/images/i026.jpg
diff --git a/32282-h/images/i026tmb.jpg b/32282-h/images/i026tmb.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..c0c079e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/32282-h/images/i026tmb.jpg
diff --git a/32282-h/images/i027.jpg b/32282-h/images/i027.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..6ef47fb
--- /dev/null
+++ b/32282-h/images/i027.jpg
diff --git a/32282-h/images/i027tmb.jpg b/32282-h/images/i027tmb.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..b956f30
--- /dev/null
+++ b/32282-h/images/i027tmb.jpg
diff --git a/32282-h/images/i028.jpg b/32282-h/images/i028.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..6331839
--- /dev/null
+++ b/32282-h/images/i028.jpg
diff --git a/32282-h/images/i028tmb.jpg b/32282-h/images/i028tmb.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..a453a68
--- /dev/null
+++ b/32282-h/images/i028tmb.jpg
diff --git a/32282-h/images/i030.jpg b/32282-h/images/i030.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..93f9a90
--- /dev/null
+++ b/32282-h/images/i030.jpg
diff --git a/32282-h/images/i030tmb.jpg b/32282-h/images/i030tmb.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..ea286a5
--- /dev/null
+++ b/32282-h/images/i030tmb.jpg
diff --git a/32282-h/images/i031.jpg b/32282-h/images/i031.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..c89e99d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/32282-h/images/i031.jpg
diff --git a/32282-h/images/i031tmb.jpg b/32282-h/images/i031tmb.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..622caca
--- /dev/null
+++ b/32282-h/images/i031tmb.jpg
diff --git a/32282-h/images/i032.jpg b/32282-h/images/i032.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..2c63e77
--- /dev/null
+++ b/32282-h/images/i032.jpg
diff --git a/32282-h/images/i032tmb.jpg b/32282-h/images/i032tmb.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..37887a5
--- /dev/null
+++ b/32282-h/images/i032tmb.jpg
diff --git a/32282-h/images/i033.jpg b/32282-h/images/i033.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..1bc63cf
--- /dev/null
+++ b/32282-h/images/i033.jpg
diff --git a/32282-h/images/i036.jpg b/32282-h/images/i036.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..d8e510c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/32282-h/images/i036.jpg
diff --git a/32282-h/images/i036tmb.jpg b/32282-h/images/i036tmb.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..97a3296
--- /dev/null
+++ b/32282-h/images/i036tmb.jpg
diff --git a/32282-h/images/i037.jpg b/32282-h/images/i037.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..cb288a9
--- /dev/null
+++ b/32282-h/images/i037.jpg
diff --git a/32282-h/images/i040.jpg b/32282-h/images/i040.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..90e0635
--- /dev/null
+++ b/32282-h/images/i040.jpg
diff --git a/32282-h/images/i040tmb.jpg b/32282-h/images/i040tmb.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..c68790a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/32282-h/images/i040tmb.jpg
diff --git a/32282-h/images/i041.jpg b/32282-h/images/i041.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..f8bed82
--- /dev/null
+++ b/32282-h/images/i041.jpg
diff --git a/32282-h/images/i043.jpg b/32282-h/images/i043.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..cc58b59
--- /dev/null
+++ b/32282-h/images/i043.jpg
diff --git a/32282-h/images/i043tmb.jpg b/32282-h/images/i043tmb.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..2194fb3
--- /dev/null
+++ b/32282-h/images/i043tmb.jpg
diff --git a/32282-h/images/i044.jpg b/32282-h/images/i044.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..e7bb057
--- /dev/null
+++ b/32282-h/images/i044.jpg
diff --git a/32282-h/images/i044tmb.jpg b/32282-h/images/i044tmb.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..295c395
--- /dev/null
+++ b/32282-h/images/i044tmb.jpg
diff --git a/32282-h/images/i049bottom.jpg b/32282-h/images/i049bottom.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..b4e8cc2
--- /dev/null
+++ b/32282-h/images/i049bottom.jpg
diff --git a/32282-h/images/i049bottomtmb.jpg b/32282-h/images/i049bottomtmb.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..ad08aa4
--- /dev/null
+++ b/32282-h/images/i049bottomtmb.jpg
diff --git a/32282-h/images/i049top.jpg b/32282-h/images/i049top.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..fce7998
--- /dev/null
+++ b/32282-h/images/i049top.jpg
diff --git a/32282-h/images/i049toptmb.jpg b/32282-h/images/i049toptmb.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..8685de2
--- /dev/null
+++ b/32282-h/images/i049toptmb.jpg
diff --git a/32282-h/images/i052.jpg b/32282-h/images/i052.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..b2a0011
--- /dev/null
+++ b/32282-h/images/i052.jpg
diff --git a/32282-h/images/i054.jpg b/32282-h/images/i054.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..f913682
--- /dev/null
+++ b/32282-h/images/i054.jpg
diff --git a/32282-h/images/i057.jpg b/32282-h/images/i057.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..791d97d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/32282-h/images/i057.jpg
diff --git a/32282-h/images/i060.jpg b/32282-h/images/i060.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..c2f4a01
--- /dev/null
+++ b/32282-h/images/i060.jpg
diff --git a/32282-h/images/i063.jpg b/32282-h/images/i063.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..15a7cc4
--- /dev/null
+++ b/32282-h/images/i063.jpg
diff --git a/32282-h/images/i063tmb.jpg b/32282-h/images/i063tmb.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..ba0f9d0
--- /dev/null
+++ b/32282-h/images/i063tmb.jpg
diff --git a/32282-h/images/i064.jpg b/32282-h/images/i064.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..8488445
--- /dev/null
+++ b/32282-h/images/i064.jpg
diff --git a/32282-h/images/i067.jpg b/32282-h/images/i067.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..0dc6a50
--- /dev/null
+++ b/32282-h/images/i067.jpg
diff --git a/32282-h/images/i068.jpg b/32282-h/images/i068.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..0c8d00a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/32282-h/images/i068.jpg
diff --git a/32282-h/images/i069.jpg b/32282-h/images/i069.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..f8d12c5
--- /dev/null
+++ b/32282-h/images/i069.jpg
diff --git a/32282-h/images/i069tmb.jpg b/32282-h/images/i069tmb.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..7bf5da2
--- /dev/null
+++ b/32282-h/images/i069tmb.jpg
diff --git a/32282-h/images/i070.jpg b/32282-h/images/i070.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..7441045
--- /dev/null
+++ b/32282-h/images/i070.jpg
diff --git a/32282-h/images/i071a.jpg b/32282-h/images/i071a.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..cf3a004
--- /dev/null
+++ b/32282-h/images/i071a.jpg
diff --git a/32282-h/images/i071b.jpg b/32282-h/images/i071b.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..3edfd41
--- /dev/null
+++ b/32282-h/images/i071b.jpg
diff --git a/32282-h/images/i072.jpg b/32282-h/images/i072.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..381cd0f
--- /dev/null
+++ b/32282-h/images/i072.jpg
diff --git a/32282-h/images/icover.jpg b/32282-h/images/icover.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..7c1bb8e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/32282-h/images/icover.jpg
diff --git a/32282.txt b/32282.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..279cd12
--- /dev/null
+++ b/32282.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,2019 @@
+The Project Gutenberg EBook of Elevator Systems of the Eiffel Tower, 1889, by
+Robert M. Vogel
+
+This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with
+almost no restrictions whatsoever.  You may copy it, give it away or
+re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included
+with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org
+
+
+Title: Elevator Systems of the Eiffel Tower, 1889
+
+Author: Robert M. Vogel
+
+Release Date: May 7, 2010 [EBook #32282]
+
+Language: English
+
+Character set encoding: ASCII
+
+*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK ELEVATOR SYSTEMS ***
+
+
+
+
+Produced by Chris Curnow, Joseph Cooper and the Online
+Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+  CONTRIBUTIONS FROM
+  THE MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY:
+  PAPER 19
+
+
+  ELEVATOR SYSTEMS
+  OF THE EIFFEL TOWER, 1889
+
+  _Robert M. Vogel_
+
+
+  PREPARATORY WORK FOR THE TOWER             4
+
+  THE TOWER'S STRUCTURAL RATIONALE           5
+
+  ELEVATOR DEVELOPMENT BEFORE THE TOWER      6
+
+  THE TOWER'S ELEVATORS                     20
+
+  EPILOGUE                                  37
+
+
+
+
+ELEVATOR SYSTEMS of the EIFFEL TOWER, 1889
+
+By Robert M. Vogel
+
+     _This article traces the evolution of the powered passenger elevator
+     from its initial development in the mid-19th century to the
+     installation of the three separate elevator systems in the Eiffel
+     Tower in 1889. The design of the Tower's elevators involved problems
+     of capacity, length of rise, and safety far greater than any
+     previously encountered in the field; and the equipment that resulted
+     was the first capable of meeting the conditions of vertical
+     transportation found in the just emerging skyscraper._
+
+     THE AUTHOR: _Robert M. Vogel is associate curator of mechanical and
+     civil engineering, United States National Museum, Smithsonian
+     Institution._
+
+
+The 1,000-foot tower that formed the focal point and central feature of
+the Universal Exposition of 1889 at Paris has become one of the best known
+of man's works. It was among the most outstanding technological
+achievements of an age which was itself remarkable for such achievements.
+
+Second to the interest shown in the tower's structural aspects was the
+interest in its mechanical organs. Of these, the most exceptional were the
+three separate elevator systems by which the upper levels were made
+accessible to the Exposition visitors. The design of these systems
+involved problems far greater than had been encountered in previous
+elevator work anywhere in the world. The basis of these difficulties was
+the amplification of the two conditions that were the normal determinants
+in elevator design--passenger capacity and height of rise. In addition,
+there was the problem, totally new, of fitting elevator shafts to the
+curvature of the Tower's legs. The study of the various solutions to these
+problems presents a concise view of the capabilities of the elevator art
+just prior to the beginning of the most recent phase of its development,
+marked by the entry of electricity into the field.
+
+The great confidence of the Tower's builder in his own engineering ability
+can be fully appreciated, however, only when notice is taken of one
+exceptional way in which the project differed from works of earlier
+periods as well as from contemporary ones. In almost every case, these
+other works had evolved, in a natural and progressive way, from a
+fundamental concept firmly based upon precedent. This was true of such
+notable structures of the time as the Brooklyn Bridge and, to a lesser
+extent, the Forth Bridge. For the design of his tower, there was virtually
+no experience in structural history from which Eiffel could draw other
+than a series of high piers that his own firm had designed earlier for
+railway bridges. It was these designs that led Eiffel to consider the
+practicality of iron structures of extreme height.
+
+
+[Illustration: Figure 1.--The Eiffel Tower at the time of the Universal
+Exposition of 1889 at Paris. (From _La Nature_, June 29, 1889, vol. 17, p.
+73.)]
+
+[Illustration: Figure 2.--Gustave Eiffel (1832-1923). (From Gustave
+Eiffel, _La Tour de Trois Cents Metres_, Paris, 1900, frontispiece.)]
+
+
+There was, it is true, some inspiration to be found in the paper projects
+of several earlier designers--themselves inspired by that compulsion which
+throughout history seems to have driven men to attempt the erection of
+magnificently high structures.
+
+One such inspiration was a proposal made in 1832 by the celebrated but
+eccentric Welsh engineer Richard Trevithick to erect a 1,000-foot,
+conical, cast-iron tower (fig. 3) to celebrate the passing of the Reform
+Bill. Of particular interest in light of the present discussion was
+Trevithick's plan to raise visitors to the summit on a piston, driven
+upward within the structure's hollow central tube by compressed air. It
+probably is fortunate for Trevithick's reputation that his plan died
+shortly after this and the project was forgotten.
+
+One project of genuine promise was a tower proposed by the eminent
+American engineering firm of Clarke, Reeves & Company to be erected at the
+Centennial Exhibition at Philadelphia in 1876. At the time, this firm was
+perhaps the leading designer and erector of iron structures in the United
+States, having executed such works as the Girard Avenue Bridge over the
+Schuylkill at Fairmount Park, and most of New York's early elevated
+railway system. The company's proposal (fig. 4) for a 1,000-foot shaft of
+wrought-iron columns braced by a continuous web of diagonals was based
+upon sound theoretical knowledge and practical experience. Nevertheless,
+the natural hesitation that the fair's sponsors apparently felt in the
+face of so heroic a scheme could not be overcome, and this project also
+remained a vision.
+
+
+
+
+Preparatory Work for the Tower
+
+
+In the year 1885, the Eiffel firm, which also had an extensive background
+of experience in structural engineering, undertook a series of
+investigations of tall metallic piers based upon its recent experiences
+with several lofty railway viaducts and bridges. The most spectacular of
+these was the famous Garabit Viaduct (1880-1884), which carries a railroad
+some 400 feet above the valley of the Truyere in southern France. While
+the 200-foot height of the viaduct's two greatest piers was not startling
+even at that period, the studies proved that piers of far greater height
+were entirely feasible in iron construction. This led to the design of a
+395-foot pier, which, although never incorporated into a bridge, may be
+said to have been the direct basis for the Eiffel Tower.
+
+Preliminary studies for a 300-meter tower were made with the 1889 fair
+immediately in mind. With an assurance born of positive knowledge, Eiffel
+in June of 1886 approached the Exposition commissioners with the project.
+There can be no doubt that only the singular respect with which Eiffel was
+regarded not only by his profession but by the entire nation motivated the
+Commission to approve a plan which, in the hands of a figure of less
+stature, would have been considered grossly impractical.
+
+Between this time and commencement of the Tower's construction at the end
+of January 1887, there arose one of the most persistently annoying of the
+numerous difficulties, both structural and social, which confronted Eiffel
+as the project advanced. In the wake of the initial enthusiasm--on the
+part of the fair's Commission inspired by the desire to create a monument
+to French technological achievement, and on the part of the majority of
+Frenchmen by the stirring of their imagination at the magnitude of the
+structure--there grew a rising movement of disfavor. The nucleus was, not
+surprisingly, formed mainly of the intelligentsia, but objections were
+made by prominent Frenchmen in all walks of life. The most interesting
+point to be noted in a retrospection of this often violent opposition was
+that, although the Tower's every aspect was attacked, there was remarkably
+little criticism of its structural feasibility, either by the engineering
+profession or, as seems traditionally to be the case with bold and
+unprecedented undertakings, by large numbers of the technically uninformed
+laity. True, there was an undercurrent of what might be characterized as
+unease by many property owners in the structure's shadow, but the most
+obstinate element of resistance was that which deplored the Tower as a
+mechanistic intrusion upon the architectural and natural beauties of
+Paris. This resistance voiced its fury in a flood of special newspaper
+editions, petitions, and manifestos signed by such lights of the fine and
+literary arts as De Maupassant, Gounod, Dumas _fils_, and others. The
+eloquence of one article, which appeared in several Paris papers in
+February 1887, was typical:
+
+     We protest in the name of French taste and the national art culture
+     against the erection of a staggering Tower, like a gigantic kitchen
+     chimney dominating Paris, eclipsing by its barbarous mass Notre Dame,
+     the Sainte-Chapelle, the tower of St. Jacques, the Dome des
+     Invalides, the Arc de Triomphe, humiliating these monuments by an act
+     of madness.[1]
+
+Further, a prediction was made that the entire city would become
+dishonored by the odious shadow of the odious column of bolted sheet iron.
+
+It is impossible to determine what influence these outcries might have had
+on the project had they been organized sooner. But inasmuch as the
+Commission had, in November 1886, provided 1,500,000 francs for its
+commencement, the work had been fairly launched by the time the
+protestations became loud enough to threaten and they were ineffectual.
+
+Upon completion, many of the most vigorous protestants became as vigorous
+in their praise of the Tower, but a hard core of critics continued for
+several years to circulate petitions advocating its demolition by the
+government. One of these critics, it was said--probably apocryphally--took
+an office on the first platform, that being the only place in Paris from
+which the Tower could not be seen.
+
+
+[Illustration: Figure 3.--Trevithick's proposed cast-iron tower (1832)
+would have been 1,000 feet high, 100 feet in diameter at the base, 12 feet
+at the top, and surmounted by a colossal statue. (From F. Dye, _Popular
+Engineering_, London, 1895, p. 205.)]
+
+
+
+
+The Tower's Structural Rationale
+
+
+During the previously mentioned studies of high piers undertaken by the
+Eiffel firm, it was established that as the base width of these piers
+increased in proportion to their height, the diagonal bracing connecting
+the vertical members, necessary for rigidity, became so long as to be
+subject to high flexural stresses from wind and columnar loading. To
+resist these stresses, the bracing required extremely large sections which
+greatly increased the surface of the structure exposed to the wind, and
+was, moreover, decidedly uneconomical. To overcome this difficulty, the
+principle which became the basic design concept of the Tower was
+developed.
+
+The material which would otherwise have been used for the continuous
+lattice of diagonal bracing was concentrated in the four corner columns of
+the Tower, and these verticals were connected only at two widely
+separated points by the deep bands of trussing which formed the first and
+second platforms. A slight curvature inward was given to the main piers to
+further widen the base and increase the stability of the structure. At a
+point slightly above the second platform, the four members converged to
+the extent that conventional bracing became more economical, and they were
+joined.
+
+
+[Illustration: Figure 4.--The proposed 1,000-foot iron tower designed by
+Clarke, Reeves & Co. for the Centennial Exhibition of 1876 at
+Philadelphia. (From _Scientific American_, Jan. 24, 1874, vol. 30, p.
+47.)]
+
+
+That this theory was successful not only practically, but visually, is
+evident from the resulting work. The curve of the legs and the openings
+beneath the two lower platforms are primarily responsible for the Tower's
+graceful beauty as well as for its structural soundness.
+
+The design of the Tower was not actually the work of Eiffel himself but of
+two of his chief engineers, Emile Nouguier (1840-?) and Maurice Koechlin
+(1856-1946)--the men who had conducted the high pier studies--and the
+architect Stephen Sauvestre (1847-?).
+
+In the planning of the foundations, extreme care was used to ensure
+adequate footing, but in spite of the Tower's light weight in proportion
+to its bulk, and the low earth pressure it exerted, uneven pier settlement
+with resultant leaning of the Tower was considered a dangerous
+possibility.[2] To compensate for this eventuality, a device was used
+whose ingenious directness justifies a brief description. In the base of
+each of the 16 columns forming the four main legs was incorporated an
+opening into which an 800-ton hydraulic press could be placed, capable of
+raising the member slightly. A thin steel shim could then be inserted to
+make the necessary correction (fig. 5). The system was used only during
+construction to overcome minor erection discrepancies.
+
+In order to appreciate fully the problem which confronted the Tower's
+designers and sponsors when they turned to the problem of making its
+observation areas accessible to the fair's visitors, it is first necessary
+to investigate briefly the contemporary state of elevator art.
+
+
+
+
+Elevator Development before the Tower
+
+
+While power-driven hoists and elevators in many forms had been used since
+the early years of the 19th century, the ever-present possibility of
+breakage of the hoisting rope restricted their use almost entirely to the
+handling of goods in mills and warehouses.[3] Not until the invention of a
+device which would positively prevent this was there much basis for work
+on other elements of the system. The first workable mechanism to prevent
+the car from dropping to the bottom of the hoistway in event of rope
+failure was the product of Elisha G. Otis (1811-1861), a mechanic of
+Yonkers, New York. The invention was made more or less as a matter of
+course along with the other machinery for a new mattress factory of which
+Otis was master mechanic.
+
+
+[Illustration: Figure 5.--Correcting erection discrepancies by raising
+pier member--with hydraulic press and hand pump--and inserting shims.
+(From _La Nature_, Feb. 18, 1888, vol. 16, p. 184.)]
+
+[Illustration: Figure 6.--The promenade beneath the Eiffel Tower, 1889.
+(From _La Nature_, Nov. 30, 1889, vol. 17, p. 425.)]
+
+[Illustration: Figure 7.--Teagle elevator in an English mill about 1845.
+Power was taken from the line shafting. (From _Pictorial Gallery of Arts_,
+Volume of Useful Arts, London, n.d. [ca. 1845].)]
+
+
+The importance of this invention soon became evident to Otis, and he
+introduced his device to the public three years later during the second
+season of the New York Crystal Palace Exhibition, in 1854. Here he would
+demonstrate dramatically the perfect safety of his elevator by cutting the
+hoisting rope of a suspended platform on which he himself stood, uttering
+the immortal words which have come to be inseparably associated with the
+history of the elevator--"All safe, gentlemen!"[4]
+
+The invention achieved popularity slowly, but did find increasing favor in
+manufactories throughout the eastern United States. The significance of
+Otis' early work in this field lay strictly in the safety features of his
+elevators rather than in the hoisting equipment. His earliest systems were
+operated by machinery similar to that of the teagle elevator in which the
+hoisting drum was driven from the mill shafting by simple fast and loose
+pulleys with crossed and straight belts to raise, lower, and stop. This
+scheme, already common at the time, was itself a direct improvement on the
+ancient hand-powered drum hoist.
+
+The first complete elevator machine in the United States, constructed in
+1855, was a complex and inefficient contrivance built around an
+oscillating-cylinder steam engine. The advantages of an elevator system
+independent of the mill drive quickly became apparent, and by 1860
+improved steam elevator machines were being produced in some quantity, but
+almost exclusively for freight service. It is not clear when the first
+elevator was installed explicitly for passenger service, but it was
+probably in 1857, when Otis placed one in a store on Broadway at Broome
+Street in New York.
+
+In the decade following the Civil War, tall buildings had just begun to
+emerge; and, although the skylines of the world's great cities were still
+dominated by church spires, there was increasing activity in the
+development of elevator apparatus adapted to the transportation of people
+as well as of merchandise. Operators of hotels and stores gradually became
+aware of the commercial advantages to be gained by elevating their patrons
+even one or two floors above the ground, by machinery. The steam engine
+formed the foundation of the early elevator industry, but as building
+heights increased it was gradually replaced by hydraulic, and ultimately
+by electrical, systems.
+
+
+THE STEAM ELEVATOR
+
+The progression from an elevator machine powered by the line shafting of a
+mill to one in which the power source was independent would appear a
+simple and direct one. Nevertheless, it was about 40 years after the
+introduction of the powered elevator before it became common to couple
+elevator machines directly to separate engines. The multiple belt and
+pulley transmission system was at first retained, but it soon became
+evident that a more satisfactory service resulted from stopping and
+reversing the engine itself, using a single fixed belt to connect the
+engine and winding mechanism. Interestingly, the same pattern was followed
+40 years later when the first attempts were made to apply the electric
+motor to elevator drive.
+
+
+[Illustration: Figure 8.--In the typical steam elevator machine two
+vertical cylinders were situated either above or below the crankshaft, and
+a small pulley was keyed to the crankshaft. In a light-duty machine, the
+power was transmitted by flatbelt from the small pulley to a larger one
+mounted directly on the drum. In heavy-duty machines, spur gearing was
+interposed between the large secondary pulley and the winding drum. (Photo
+courtesy of Otis Elevator Company.)]
+
+[Illustration: Figure 9.--Several manufacturers built steam machines in
+which a gear on the drum shaft meshed directly with a worm on the
+crankshaft. This arrangement eliminated the belt, and, since the drum
+could not drive the engine through the worm gearing, no brake was
+necessary for holding the load. (Courtesy of Otis Elevator Company.)]
+
+
+By 1870 the steam elevator machine had attained its ultimate form, which,
+except for a number of minor refinements, was to remain unchanged until
+the type became completely obsolete toward the end of the century.
+
+By the last quarter of the century, a continuous series of improvements in
+the valving, control systems, and safety features of the steam machine had
+made possible an elevator able to compete with the subsequently appearing
+hydraulic systems for freight and low-rise passenger service insofar as
+smoothness, control, and lifting power were concerned. However, steam
+machinery began to fail in this competition as the increasing height of
+buildings rapidly extended the demands of speed and length of rise.
+
+The limitation in rise constituted the most serious shortcoming of the
+steam elevator (figs. 8-10), an inherent defect that did not exist in the
+various hydraulic systems.
+
+
+[Illustration: Figure 10.--Components of the steam passenger elevator at
+the time of its peak development and use (1876). (From _The First One
+Hundred Years_, Otis Elevator Company, 1953.)]
+
+
+Since the only practical way in which the power of a steam engine could be
+applied to the haulage of elevator cables was through a rotational system,
+the cables invariably were wound on a drum. The travel or rise of the car
+was therefore limited by the cable capacity of the winding drum. As
+building heights increased, drums became necessarily longer and larger
+until they grew so cumbersome as to impose a serious limitation upon
+further upward growth. A drum machine rarely could be used for a lift of
+more than 150 feet.[5]
+
+Another organic difficulty existing in drum machines was the dangerous
+possibility of the car--or the counterweight, whose cables often wound on
+the drum--being drawn past the normal top limit and into the upper
+supporting works. Only safety stops could prevent such an occurrence if
+the operator failed to stop the car at the top or bottom of the shaft, and
+even these were not always effective. Hydraulic machines were not
+susceptible to this danger, the piston or plunger being arrested by the
+ends of the cylinder at the extremes of travel.
+
+
+THE HYDRAULIC ELEVATOR
+
+The rope-geared hydraulic elevator, which was eventually to become known
+as the "standard of the industry," is generally thought to have evolved
+directly from an invention of the English engineer Sir William Armstrong
+(1810-1900) of ordnance fame. In 1846 he developed a water-powered crane,
+utilizing the hydraulic head available from a reservoir on a hill 200 feet
+above.
+
+The system was not basically different from the simple hydraulic press so
+well known at the time. Water, admitted to a horizontal cylinder,
+displaced a piston and rod to which a sheave was attached. Around the
+sheave passed a loop of chain, one end of which was fixed, the other
+running over guide sheaves and terminating at the crane arm with a lifting
+hook. As the piston was pressed into the cylinder, the free end of the
+chain was drawn up at triple the piston speed, raising the load. The
+effect was simply that of a 3-to-1 tackle, with the effort and load
+elements reversed. Simple valves controlled admission and exhaust of the
+water. (See fig. 11.)
+
+
+[Illustration: Figure 11.--Armstrong's hydraulic crane. The main cylinder
+was inclined, permitting gravity to assist in overhauling the hook. The
+small cylinder rotated the crane. (From John H. Jallings, _Elevators_,
+Chicago, 1916, p. 82.)]
+
+
+The success of this system initiated a sizable industry in England, and
+the hydraulic crane, with many modifications, was in common use there for
+many years. Such cranes were introduced in the United States in about 1867
+but never became popular; they did, however, have a profound influence on
+the elevator art, forming the basis of the third generic type to achieve
+widespread use in this country.
+
+The ease of translation from the Armstrong crane to an elevator system
+could hardly have been more evident, only two alterations of consequence
+being necessary in the passage. A guided platform or car was substituted
+for the hook; and the control valves were connected to a stationary
+endless rope that was accessible to an operator on the car.
+
+The rope-geared hydraulic system (fig. 13) appeared in mature form in
+about 1876. However, before it had become the "standard elevator" through
+a process of refinement, another system was introduced which merits notice
+if for no other reason than that its popularity for some years seems
+remarkable in view of its preposterously unsafe design. Patented by Cyrus
+W. Baldwin of Boston in January 1870, this system was termed the
+Hydro-Atmospheric Elevator, but more commonly known as the water-balance
+elevator (fig. 12). It employed water not under pressure but simply as
+mass under the influence of gravity. The elevator car's supporting cables
+ran over sheaves at the top of the shaft to a large iron bucket, which
+traveled in a closed tube or well adjacent to and the same length as the
+shaft. To raise the car, the operator caused a valve to open, filling the
+bucket with water from a roof tank. When the weight of water was
+sufficient to overbalance the loaded car, the bucket descended, raising
+the car. On its ascent the car was stopped at intermediate floors by a
+strong brake that gripped the guides. Upon reaching the top, the operator
+was able to open a valve in the bucket, now at the bottom of its travel,
+and discharge its contents into a basement tank, to be pumped back to the
+roof. No longer counterbalanced, the car could descend, its speed
+controlled solely by the brake.
+
+The great popularity of this novel system apparently was due to its smooth
+operation, high speed, simplicity, and economy of operation. Managed by a
+skillful operator, it was capable of speeds far greater than other
+systems could then achieve--up to a frightening 1,800 feet per minute.[6]
+
+
+[Illustration: Figure 12.--Final development of the Baldwin-Hale water
+balance elevator, 1873. The brake, kept applied by powerful springs, was
+released only by steady pressure on a lever. There were two additional
+controls--the continuous rope that opened the cistern valve to fill the
+bucket, and a second lever to open the valve of the bucket to empty it.
+(From _United States Railroad and Mining Register_, Apr. 12, 1873, vol.
+17, p. 3.)]
+
+
+In addition to the element of potential danger from careless operation or
+failure of the brake, the Baldwin system was extremely expensive to
+install as a result of the second shaft, which of course was required to
+be more or less watertight.
+
+Much of the water-balance elevator's development and refinement was done
+by William E. Hale of Chicago, who also made most of the installations.
+The system has, therefore, come to bear his name more commonly than
+Baldwin's.
+
+The popularity of the water-balance system waned after only a few years,
+being eclipsed by more rational systems. Hale eventually abandoned it and
+became the western agent for Otis--by this time prominent in the
+field--and subsequently was influential in development of the hydraulic
+elevator.
+
+The rope-geared system of hydraulic elevator operation was so basically
+simple that by 1880 it had been embraced by virtually all manufacturers.
+However, for years most builders continued to maintain a line of steam and
+belt driven machines for freight service. Inspired by the rapid increase
+of taller and taller buildings, there was a concentrated effort,
+heightened by severe competition, to refine the basic system.
+
+
+[Illustration: Figure 13.--Vertical cylinder, rope-geared hydraulic
+elevator with 2:1 gear ratio and rope control (about 1880). For higher
+rises and speeds, ratios of up to 10:1 were used, and the endless rope was
+replaced by a lever. (Courtesy of Otis Elevator Company.)]
+
+
+By the late 1880's a vast number of improvements in detail had appeared,
+and this form of elevator was considered to be almost without defect. It
+was safe. Absence of a drum enabled the car to be carried by a number of
+cables rather than by one or two, and rendered overtravel impossible. It
+was fast. Control devices had received probably the most attention by
+engineers and were as perfect and sensitive as was possible with
+mechanical means. Cars with lever control could be run at the high speeds
+required for high buildings, yet they could be stopped with a smoothness
+and precision unattainable earlier with systems in which the valves were
+controlled by an endless rope, worked by the operator. It was almost
+completely silent, and when the cylinder was placed vertically in a well
+near the shaft, practically no valuable floor space was occupied. But most
+important, the length of rise was unlimited because no drum was used. As
+greater rises were required, the multiplication of the ropes and sheaves
+was simply increased, raising the piston-car travel ratio and permitting
+the cylinder to remain of manageable length. The ratio was often as high
+as 10 or 12 to 1, the car moving 10 or 12 feet to the piston's 1.
+
+In addition to its principal advantages, the hydraulic elevator could be
+operated directly from municipal water mains in the many cities where
+there was sufficient pressure, thus eliminating a large investment in
+tanks, pumps and boilers (fig. 14).
+
+By far the greatest development in this specialized branch of mechanical
+engineering occurred in the United States. The comparative position of
+American practice, which will be demonstrated farther on, is indicated by
+the fact that Otis Brothers and other large elevator concerns in the
+United States were able to establish offices in many of the major cities
+of Europe and compete very successfully with local firms in spite of the
+higher costs due to shipment. This also demonstrates the extent of error
+in the oft-heard statement that the skyscraper was the direct result of
+the elevator's invention. There is no question that continued elevator
+improvement was an essential factor in the rapid increase of building
+heights. However, consideration of the situation in European cities, where
+buildings of over 10 stories were (and still are) rare in spite of the
+availability of similar elevator techniques, points to the fundamental
+matter of tradition. The European city simply did not develop with the
+lack of judicial restraint which characterized metropolitan growth in the
+United States. The American tendency to confine mercantile activity to the
+smallest possible area resulted in excessive land values, which drove
+buildings skyward. The elevator followed, or, at most, kept pace with,
+the development of higher buildings.
+
+
+[Illustration: Figure 14.--In the various hydraulic systems, a pump was
+required if pressure from water mains was insufficient to operate the
+elevator directly. There was either a gravity tank on the roof or a
+pressure tank in the basement. (From Thomas E. Brown, Jr., "The American
+Passenger Elevator," _Engineering Magazine_ (New York), June 1893, vol. 5,
+p. 340.)]
+
+
+European elevator development--notwithstanding the number of American
+rope-geared hydraulic machines sold in Europe in the 10 years or so
+preceding the Paris fair of 1889--was confined mainly to variations on the
+direct plunger type, which was first used in English factories in the
+1830's. The plunger elevator (fig. 16), an even closer derivative of the
+hydraulic press than Armstrong's crane, was nothing more than a platform
+on the upper end of a vertical plunger that rose from a cylinder as water
+was forced in.
+
+There were two reasons for this European practice. The first and most
+apparent was the rarity of tall buildings. The drilling of a well to
+receive the cylinder was thus a matter of little difficulty. This well had
+to be equivalent in depth to the elevator rise. The second reason was an
+innate European distrust of cable-hung elevator systems in any form, an
+attitude that will be discussed more fully farther on.
+
+
+THE ELECTRIC ELEVATOR
+
+At the time the Eiffel Tower elevators were under consideration, water
+under pressure was, from a practical standpoint, the only agent capable of
+fulfilling the power and control requirements of this particularly severe
+service. Steam, as previously mentioned, had already been found wanting in
+several respects. Electricity, on the other hand, seemed to hold promise
+for almost every field of human endeavor. By 1888 the electric motor had
+behind it a 10- or 15-year history of active development. Frank J. Sprague
+had already placed in successful operation a sizable electric trolley-car
+system, and was manufacturing motors of up to 20 horsepower in commercial
+quantity. Lighting generators were being produced in sizes far greater.
+There were, nevertheless, many obstacles preventing the translation of
+this progress into machinery capable of hauling large groups of people a
+vertical distance of 1,000 feet with unquestionable dependability.
+
+The first application of electricity to elevator propulsion was an
+experiment of the distinguished German electrician Werner von Siemens,
+who, in 1880, constructed a car that successfully climbed a rack by means
+of a motor and worm gearing beneath its deck (figs. 17, 18)--again, the
+characteristic European distrust of cable suspension. However, the effect
+of this success on subsequent development was negligible. Significant use
+of electricity in this field occurred somewhat later, and in a manner
+parallel to that by which steam was first applied to the elevator--the
+driving of mechanical (belt driven) elevator machines by individual
+motors. Slightly later came another application of the "conversion" type.
+This was the simple substitution of electrically driven pumps (fig. 21)
+for steam pumps in hydraulic installations. It will be recalled that pumps
+were necessary in cases where water main pressure was insufficient to
+operate the elevator directly.
+
+In both of these cases the operational demands on the motor were of course
+identical to those on the prime movers which they replaced; no reversal of
+direction was necessary, the speed was constant, and the load was nearly
+constant. Furthermore, the load could be applied to the motor gradually
+through automatic relief valves on the pump and in the mechanical machines
+by slippage as the belt was shifted from the loose to the fast pulleys.
+The ultimate simplicity in control resulted from permitting the motor to
+run continuously, drawing current only in proportion to its loading. The
+direct-current motor of the 1880's was easily capable of such service, and
+it was widely used in this way.
+
+
+[Illustration: Figure 15.--Rope-geared hydraulic freight elevator using a
+horizontal cylinder (about 1883). (From a Lane & Bodley illustrated
+catalog of hydraulic elevators, Cincinnati, n.d.)]
+
+[Illustration: Figure 16.--English direct plunger hydraulic elevator
+(about 1895). (From F. Dye, _Popular Engineering_, London, 1895, p. 280.)]
+
+
+Adaptation of the motor to the direct drive of an elevator machine was
+quite another matter, the difficulties being largely those of control. At
+this time the only practical means of starting a motor under load was by
+introducing resistance into the circuit and cutting it out in a series of
+steps as the speed picked up; precisely the method used to start traction
+motors. In the early attempts to couple the motor directly to the winding
+drum through worm gearing, this "notching up" was transmitted to the car
+as a jerking motion, disagreeable to passengers and hard on machinery.
+Furthermore, the controller contacts had a short life because of the
+arcing which resulted from heavy starting currents. In all, such systems
+were unsatisfactory and generally unreliable, and were held in disfavor by
+both elevator experts and owners.
+
+
+[Illustration: Figure 17.--Siemens' electric rack-climbing elevator of
+1880. (From Werner von Siemens, _Gesammelte Abhandlungen und Vortraege_,
+Berlin, 1881, pl. 5.)]
+
+
+There was, moreover, little inducement to overcome the problem of control
+and other minor problems because of a more serious difficulty which had
+persisted since the days of steam. This was the matter of the drum and its
+attendant limitations. The motor's action being rotatory, the winding drum
+was the only practical way in which to apply its motive power to hoisting.
+This single fact shut electricity almost completely out of any large-scale
+elevator business until after the turn of the century. True, there was a
+certain amount of development, after about 1887, of the electric
+worm-drive drum machine for slow-speed, low-rise service (fig. 19). But
+the first installation of this type that was considered practically
+successful--in that it was in continuous use for a long period--was not
+made until 1889,[7] the year in which the Eiffel Tower was completed.
+
+Pertinent is the one nearly successful attempt which was made to approach
+the high-rise problem electrically. In 1888, Charles R. Pratt, an elevator
+engineer of Montclair, New Jersey, invented a machine based on the
+horizontal cylinder rope-geared hydraulic elevator, in which the two sets
+of sheaves were drawn apart by a screw and traveling nut. The screw was
+revolved directly by a Sprague motor, the system being known as the
+Sprague-Pratt. While a number of installations were made, the machine was
+subject to several serious mechanical faults and passed out of use around
+1900. Generally, electricity as a practical workable power for elevators
+seemed to hold little promise in 1888.[8]
+
+
+[Illustration: Figure 18.--Motor and drive mechanism of Siemens'
+elevator. (From Alfred R. Urbanitzky, _Electricity in the Service of Man_,
+London, 1886, p. 646.)]
+
+[Illustration:
+
+  _Morse, Williams & Co._,
+
+  BUILDERS OF
+  PASSENGER
+  AND
+  FREIGHT
+  ELEVATORS.
+
+  ELECTRIC ELEVATOR.
+
+  Write us for Circulars and Prices.
+
+  Main Office and Works, 1105 Frankford Avenue,
+  PHILADELPHIA.
+
+
+  New York Office,      108 Liberty Street.
+  New Haven  "          82 Church Street.
+  Pittsburg  "          413 Fourth Avenue.
+  Boston Office         19 Pearl Street.
+  Baltimore  "          Builders' Exchange.
+  Scranton   "          425 Spruce Street.
+
+Figure 19.--The electric elevator in its earliest commercial form (1891),
+with the motor connected directly to the load. By this time, incandescent
+lighting circuits in large cities were sufficiently extensive to make such
+installations practical. However, capacity and lift were severely limited
+by weaknesses of the control system and the necessity of using a drum.
+(From _Electrical World_, Jan. 2, 1897, vol. 20, p. xcvii.)]
+
+[Illustration:
+
+  MILLER'S PATENT
+  LIFE AND LABOR-SAVING
+  SCREW HOISTING MACHINE,
+  FOR THE USE OF
+  Stores, Hotels, Warehouses, Factories, Sugar Refineries,
+      Packing Houses, Mills, Docks, Mines, &c.
+  MANUFACTURED BY
+  CAMPBELL, WHITTIER & CO., ROXBURY, MASS.
+  _Sole Agents for the New England States._
+
+The above Engraving illustrates a very superior Hoisting Machine, designed
+for _Store and Warehouse Hoisting_. It is very simple in its construction,
+compact, durable, and not liable to get out of order. An examination of
+the Engraving will convince any one who has any knowledge of Machinery,
+that the screw is the only safe principle on which to construct a Hoisting
+Machine or Elevator.
+
+Figure 20.--Advertisement for the Miller screw-hoisting machine, about
+1867 (see p. 23). From flyer in the United States National Museum.]
+
+[Illustration: Figure 21.--The first widespread use of electricity in the
+elevator field was to drive belt-type mechanical machines and the pumps of
+hydraulic systems (see p. 14) as shown here. (From _Electrical World_,
+Jan. 4, 1890, vol. 15, p. 4.)]
+
+
+
+
+The Tower's Elevators
+
+
+A great part of the Eiffel Tower's worth and its _raison d'etre_ lay in
+the overwhelming visual power by which it was to symbolize to a world
+audience the scientific, artistic, and, above all, the technical
+achievements of the French Republic. Another consideration, in Eiffel's
+opinion, was its great potential value as a scientific observatory. At its
+summit grand experiments and observations would be possible in such fields
+as meteorology and astronomy. In this respect it was welcomed as a
+tremendous improvement over the balloon and steam winch that had been
+featured in this service at the 1878 Paris exposition. Experiments were
+also to be conducted on the electrical illumination of cities from great
+heights. The great strategic value of the Tower as an observation post
+also was recognized. But from the beginning, sight was never lost of the
+structure's great value as an unprecedented public attraction, and its
+systematic exploitation in this manner played a part in its planning,
+second perhaps only to the basic design.
+
+The conveyance of multitudes of visitors to the Tower's first or main
+platform and a somewhat lesser number to the summit was a technical
+problem whose seriousness Eiffel must certainly have been aware of at the
+project's onset. While a few visitors could be expected to walk to the
+first or possibly second stage, 377 feet above the ground, the main means
+of transport obviously had to be elevators. Indeed, the two aspects of the
+Tower with which the Exposition commissioners were most deeply concerned
+were the adequate grounding of lightning and the provision of a reliable
+system of elevators, which they insisted be unconditionally safe.
+
+To study the elevator problem, Eiffel retained a man named Backmann who
+was considered an expert on the subject. Apparently Backmann originally
+was to design the complete system, but he was to prove inadequate to the
+task. As his few schemes are studied it becomes increasingly difficult to
+imagine by what qualifications he was regarded as either an elevator
+expert or designer by Eiffel and the Commission. His proposals appear,
+with one exception, to have been decidedly retrogressive, and, further, to
+incorporate the most undesirable features of those earlier systems he
+chose to borrow from. Nothing has been discovered regarding his work, if
+any, on elevators for the lower section of the Tower. Realizing the
+difficulty of this aspect of the problem, he may not have attempted its
+solution, and confined his work to the upper half where the structure
+permitted a straight, vertical run.
+
+
+[Illustration: Figure 22.--Various levels of the Eiffel Tower. (Adapted
+from Gustave Eiffel, _La Tour de Trois Cents Metres_, Paris, 1900, pl.
+1.)]
+
+
+The Backmann design for the upper elevators was based upon a principle
+which had been attractive to many inventors in the mid-19th century period
+of elevator development--that of "screwing the car up" by means of a
+threaded element and a nut, either of which might be rotated and the other
+remain stationary. The analogy to a nut and bolt made the scheme an
+obvious one at that early time, but its inherent complexity soon became
+equally evident and it never achieved practical success. Backmann
+projected two cylindrical cars that traveled in parallel shafts and
+balanced one another from opposite ends of common cables that passed over
+a sheave in the upperworks. Around the inside of each shaft extended a
+spiral track upon which ran rollers attached to revolving frames
+underneath the cars. When the frames were made to revolve, the rollers,
+running around the track, would raise or lower one car, the other
+traveling in the opposite direction (fig. 23).
+
+
+[Illustration: Figure 23.--Backmann's proposed helicoidal elevator for the
+upper section of the Eiffel Tower. The cars were to be self-powered by
+electric motors. Note similarity to the Miller system (fig. 20). (Adapted
+from _The Engineer_ (London), Aug. 3, 1888, vol. 66, p. 101.)]
+
+
+In the plan as first presented, a ground-based steam engine drove the
+frames and rollers through an endless fly rope--traveling at high speed
+presumably to permit it to be of small diameter and still transmit a
+reasonable amount of power--which engaged pulleys on the cars. The design
+was remarkably similar to that of the Miller Patent Screw Hoisting
+Machine, which had had a brief life in the United States around 1865. The
+Miller system (see p. 19) used a flat belt rather than a rope (fig. 20).
+This plan was quickly rejected, probably because of anticipated
+difficulties with the rope transmission.[9]
+
+Backmann's second proposal, actually approved by the Commission,
+incorporated the only--although highly significant--innovation evident in
+his designs. For the rope transmission, electric motors were substituted,
+one in each car to drive the roller frame directly. With this
+modification, the plan does not seem quite as unreasonable, and would
+probably have worked. However, it would certainly have lacked the
+necessary durability and would have been extremely expensive. The
+Commission discarded the whole scheme about the middle of 1888, giving two
+reasons for its action: (1) the novelty of the system and the attendant
+possibility of stoppages which might seriously interrupt the "exploitation
+of the Tower," and (2) fear that the rollers running around the tracks
+would cause excessive noise and vibration. Both reasons seem quite
+incredible when the Backmann system is compared to one of those actually
+used--the Roux, described below--which obviously must have been subject to
+identical failings, and on a far greater scale. More likely there existed
+an unspoken distrust of electric propulsion.
+
+That the Backmann system should have been given serious consideration at
+all reflects the uncertainty surrounding the entire matter of providing
+elevator service of such unusual nature. Had the Eiffel Tower been erected
+only 15 years later, the situation would have been simply one of
+selection. As it was, Eiffel and the commissioners were governed not by
+what they wanted but largely by what was available.
+
+
+THE OTIS SYSTEM
+
+The curvature of the Tower's legs imposed a problem unique in elevator
+design, and it caused great annoyance to Eiffel, the fair's Commission,
+and all others concerned. Since a vertical shaftway anywhere within the
+open area beneath the first platform was esthetically unthinkable, the
+elevators could be placed only in the inclined legs. The problem of
+reaching the first platform was not serious. The legs were wide enough and
+their curvature so slight in this lower portion as to permit them to
+contain a straight run of track, and the service could have been designed
+along the lines of an ordinary inclined railway. It was estimated that the
+great majority of visitors would go only to this level, attracted by the
+several international restaurants, bars and other features located there.
+Two elevators to operate only that far were contracted for with no
+difficulty--one to be placed in the east leg and one in the west.
+
+To transport people to the second platform was an altogether different
+problem. Since there was to be a single run from the ground, it would have
+been necessary to form the elevator guides either with a constant
+curvature, approximating that of the legs, or with a series of straight
+chords connected by short segmental curves of small radius. Eiffel planned
+initially to use the first method, but the second was adopted ultimately,
+probably as being the simpler because only two straight lengths of run
+were found to be necessary.
+
+Bids were invited for two elevators on this basis--one each for the north
+and south legs. Here the unprecedented character of the matter became
+evident--there was not a firm in France willing to undertake the work. The
+American Elevator Company, the European branch of Otis Brothers & Company,
+did submit a proposal through its Paris office, Otis Ascenseur Cie., but
+the Commission was compelled to reject it because a clause in the fair's
+charter prohibited the use of any foreign material in the construction of
+the Tower. Furthermore, there was a strong prejudice against foreign
+contractors, which, because of the general background of disfavor
+surrounding the project during its early stages, was an element worth
+serious consideration by the Commission. The bidding time was extended,
+and many attempts were made to attract a native design but none was
+forthcoming.
+
+As time grew short, it became imperative to resolve the matter, and the
+Commission, in desperation, awarded the contract to Otis in July 1887 for
+the amount of $22,500.[10] A curious footnote to the affair appeared much
+later in the form of a published interview[11] with W. Frank Hall, Otis'
+Paris representative:
+
+     "Yes," said Mr. Hall, "this is the first elevator of its kind. Our
+     people for thirty-eight years have been doing this work, and have
+     constructed thousands of elevators vertically, and many on an
+     incline, but never one to strike a radius of 160 feet for a distance
+     of over 50 feet. It has required a great amount of preparatory study
+     and we have worked on it for three years."
+
+     "That was before you got the contract?"
+
+     "Quite so, but we knew that, although the French authorities were
+     very reluctant to give away this piece of work, they would be bound
+     to come to us, and so we were preparing for them."
+
+Such supreme confidence must have rapidly evaporated as events progressed.
+Despite the invaluable advertising to be derived from an installation of
+such distinction, the Otises would probably have defaulted had they
+foreseen the difficulties which preceded completion of the work.
+
+
+[Illustration: Figure 24.--General arrangement of Otis elevator system in
+Eiffel Tower. (From _The Engineer_ (London), July 19, 1889, vol. 68, p.
+58.)]
+
+
+The proposed system (fig. 24) was based fundamentally upon Otis' standard
+hydraulic elevator, but it was recognizable only in basic operating
+principle (fig. 25). Tracks of regular rail section replaced the guides
+because of the incline, and the double-decked cabin (fig. 29) ran on small
+flanged wheels. This much of the apparatus was really not unlike that of
+an ordinary inclined railway. Motive power was provided by the customary
+hydraulic cylinder (fig. 26), set on an angle roughly equal to the incline
+of the lower section of run. Balancing the cabin's dead weight was a
+counterpoise carriage (fig. 27) loaded with pig iron that traveled on a
+second set of rails beneath the main track. Like the driving system, the
+counterweight was rope-geared, 3 to 1, so that its travel was about 125
+feet to the cabin's 377 feet.
+
+
+[Illustration: Figure 25.--Schematic diagram of the rigging of the Otis
+system. (Adapted from Gustave Eiffel, _La Tour de Trois Cents Metres_,
+Paris, 1900, p. 127.)]
+
+
+Everything about the system was on a scale far heavier than found in the
+normal elevator of the type. The cylinder, of 38-inch bore, was 36 feet
+long. Rather than a simple nest of pulleys, the piston rods pulled a large
+guided carriage or "chariot" bearing six movable sheaves (fig. 28).
+Corresponding were five stationary sheaves, the whole reeved to form an
+immense 12-purchase tackle. The car, attached to the free ends of the
+cables, was hauled up as the piston drew the two sheave assemblies apart.
+
+In examining the system, it is difficult to determine what single element
+in its design might have caused such a problem as to have been beyond the
+engineering ability of a French firm, and to have caused such concern to a
+large, well-established American organization of Otis' wide elevator and
+inclined railway experience. Indeed, when the French system--which served
+the first platform from the east and west legs--is examined, it appears
+curious that a national technology capable of producing a machine at such
+a level of complexity should have been unable to deal easily with the
+entire matter. This can be plausibly explained only on the basis of
+Europe's previously mentioned lack of experience with rope-geared and
+other cable-hung elevator systems. The difficulty attending Otis' work,
+usually true in the case of all innovations, lay unquestionably in the
+multitudes of details--many of them, of course, invisible when only the
+successfully working end product is observed.
+
+More than a matter of detail was the Commission's demand for perfect
+safety, which precipitated a situation typical of many confronting Otis
+during the entire work. Otis had wished to coordinate the entire design
+process through Mr. Hall, with technical matters handled by mail.
+Nevertheless, at Eiffel's insistence, and with some inconvenience, in 1888
+the company dispatched the project's engineer, Thomas E. Brown, Jr., to
+Paris for a direct consultation. Mild conflict over minor details ensued,
+but a gross difference of opinion arose ultimately between the American
+and French engineers over the safety of the system. The disagreement
+threatened to halt the entire project. In common with all elevators in
+which the car hangs by cables, the prime consideration here was a means of
+arresting the cabin should the cables fail. As originally presented to
+Eiffel, the plans indicated an elaborate modification of the standard Otis
+safety device--itself a direct derivative of E. G. Otis' original.
+
+If any one of the six hoisting cables broke or stretched unduly, or if
+their tension slackened for any reason, powerful leaf springs were
+released causing brake shoes to grip the rails. The essential feature of
+the design was the car's arrest by friction between its grippers and the
+rails so that the stopping action was gradual, not sudden as in the
+elevator safety. During proof trials of the safety, made prior to the
+fair's opening by cutting away a set of temporary hoisting cables, the
+cabin would fall about 10 feet before being halted.
+
+
+[Illustration: Figure 26.--Section through the Otis power cylinder.
+(Adapted from Gustave Eiffel, _La Tour de Trois Cents Metres_, Paris,
+1900, pl. 22.)]
+
+[Illustration: Figure 27.--Details of the counterweight carriage in the
+Otis system. (From Gustave Eiffel, _La Tour de Trois Cents Metres_, Paris,
+1900, pl. 22{4}.)]
+
+
+Although highly efficient and of unquestionable security, this safety
+device was considered an insufficient safeguard by Eiffel, who, speaking
+in the name of the Commission, demanded the application of a device known
+as the rack and pinion safety that was used to some extent on European cog
+railways. The commissioners not only considered this system more reliable
+but felt that one of its features was a necessity: a device that
+permitted the car to be lowered by hand, even after failure of all the
+hoisting cables. The serious shortcomings of the rack and pinion were its
+great noisiness and the limitation it imposed on hoisting speed. Both
+disadvantages were due to the constant engagement of a pinion on the car
+with a continuous rack set between the rails. The meeting ended in an
+impasse, with Brown unwilling to approve the objectionable apparatus and
+able only to return to New York and lay the matter before his company.
+
+While Eiffel's attitude in the matter may appear highly unreasonable, it
+must be said that during a subsequent meeting between Brown and
+Koechlin, the French engineer implied that a mutual antagonism had
+arisen between the Tower's creator and the Commission. Thus, since his own
+judgment must have had little influence with the commissioners at that
+time, Eiffel was compelled to specify what he well knew were excessive
+safety provisions.
+
+This decision placed Otis Brothers in a decidedly uncomfortable position,
+at the mercy of the Commission. W. E. Hale, promoter of the water balance
+elevator--who by then had a strong voice in Otis' affairs--expressed the
+seriousness of the matter in a letter to the company's president, Charles
+R. Otis, following receipt of Brown's report on the Paris conference.
+Referring to the controversial cogwheel, Hale wrote
+
+     ... if this must be arranged so that the car is effected [sic] in its
+     operation by constant contact with the rack and pinion ... so as to
+     communicate the noise and jar, and unpleasant motion which such an
+     arrangement always produces, I should favor giving up the whole
+     matter rather than allying ourselves with any such abortion.... we
+     would be the laughing stock of the world, for putting up such a
+     contrivance.
+
+This difficult situation apparently was the product of a somewhat general
+contract phrased in terms of service to be provided rather than of
+specific equipment to be used. This is not unusual, but it did leave open
+to later dispute such ambiguous clauses as "adequate safety devices are to
+be provided."
+
+Although faced with the loss not only of all previously expended design
+work but also of an advertisement of international consequence, the
+company apparently concurred with Hale and so advised Paris.
+Unfortunately, there are no Otis records to reveal the subsequent
+transactions, but we may assume that Otis' threat of withdrawal prevailed,
+coupled as it was with Eiffel's confidence in the American equipment. The
+system went into operation as originally designed, free of the odious rack
+and pinion.
+
+That, unfortunately, was not the final disagreement. Before the fair's
+opening in May 1889, the relationship was strained so drastically that a
+mutually satisfactory conclusion to the project must indeed have seemed
+hopeless. The numerous minor structural modifications of the Tower legs
+found necessary as construction progressed had necessitated certain
+equivalent alteration to the Otis design insofar as its dependency upon
+the framework was affected. Consequently, work on the machinery was set
+back by some months. Eiffel was informed that although everything was
+guaranteed to be in full operation by opening day on May 1, the
+contractual deadline of January 1 could not possibly be met. Eiffel, now
+unquestionably acting on his own volition, responded by cable, refusing
+all payment. Charles Otis' reply, a classic of indignation, disclosed to
+Eiffel the jeopardy in which his impetuosity had placed the success of the
+entire project:
+
+     After all else we have borne and suffered and achieved in your
+     behalf, we regard this as a trifle too much; and we do not hesitate
+     to declare, in the strongest terms possible to the English language,
+     that we will not put up with it ... and, if there is to be War, under
+     the existing circumstances, propose that at least part of it shall be
+     fought on American ground. If Mr. Eiffel shall, on the contrary,
+     treat us as we believe we are entitled to be treated, under the
+     circumstances, and his confidence in our integrity to serve him well
+     shall be restored in season to admit of the completion of this work
+     at the time wanted, well and good; but it must be done at once ...
+     otherwise we shall ship no more work from this side, and Mr. Eiffel
+     must charge to himself the consequences of his own acts.
+
+This message apparently had the desired effect and the matter was somehow
+resolved, as the machinery was in full operation when the Exposition
+opened. The installation must have had immense promotional value for Otis
+Brothers, particularly in its contrast to the somewhat anomalous French
+system. This contrast evidently was visible to the technically
+unsophisticated as well as to visiting engineers. Several newspapers
+reported that the Otis elevators were one of the best American exhibits at
+the fair.
+
+In spite of their large over-all scale and the complication of the basic
+pattern imposed by the unique situation, the Otis elevators performed well
+and justified the original judgment and confidence which had prompted
+Eiffel to fight for their installation. Aside from the obvious advantage
+of simplicity when compared to the French machines, their operation was
+relatively quiet, and fast.
+
+The double car, traveling at 400 feet per minute, carried 40 persons, all
+seated because of the change of inclination. The main valve or distributor
+that controlled the flow of water to and from the driving cylinder was
+operated from the car by cables. The hydraulic head necessary to produce
+pressure within the cylinder was obtained from a large open reservoir on
+the second platform. After being exhausted from the cylinder, the water
+was pumped back up by two Girard pumps (fig. 31) in the engine room at
+the base of the Tower's south leg.
+
+
+THE SYSTEM OF ROUX, COMBALUZIER AND LEPAPE
+
+There can be little doubt that the French elevators placed in the east and
+west piers to carry visitors to the first stage of the Tower had the
+important secondary function of saving face. That an engineer of Eiffel's
+mechanical perception would have permitted their use, unless compelled to
+do so by the Exposition Commission, is unthinkable. Whatever the attitudes
+of the commissioners may have been, it must be said--recalling the
+Backmann system--that they did not fear innovation. The machinery
+installed by the firm of Roux, Combaluzier and Lepape was novel in every
+respect, but it was a product of misguided ingenuity and set no precedent.
+The system, never duplicated, was conceived, born, lived a brief and not
+overly creditable life, and died, entirely within the Tower.
+
+Basis of the French system was an endless chain of short, rigid,
+articulated links (fig. 35), to one point of which the car was attached.
+As the chain moved, the car was raised or lowered. Recalling the European
+distrust of suspended elevators, it is interesting to note that the car
+was pushed up by the links below, not drawn by those above, thus the
+active links were in compression. To prevent buckling of the column, the
+chain was enclosed in a conduit (fig. 36). Excessive friction was
+prevented by a pair of small rollers at each of the knuckle joints between
+the links. The system was, in fact, a duplicate one, with a chain on
+either side of the car. At the bottom of the run the chains passed around
+huge sprocket wheels, 12.80 feet in diameter, with pockets on their
+peripheries to engage the joints. Smaller wheels at the top guided the
+chains.
+
+If by some motive force the wheel (fig. 33) were turned counterclockwise,
+the lower half of the chain would be driven upward, carrying the car with
+it. Slots on the inside faces of the lower guide trunks permitted passage
+of the connection between the car and chain. Lead weights on certain links
+of the chains' upper or return sections counterbalanced most of the car's
+dead weight.
+
+
+[Illustration: Figure 28.--Plan and section of the Otis system's movable
+pulley assembly, or chariot. Piston rods are at left. (Adapted from _The
+Engineer_ (London), July 19, 1889, vol. 68, p. 58.)]
+
+
+Two horizontal cylinders rotated the driving sprockets through a mechanism
+whose effect was similar to the rope-gearing of the standard hydraulic
+elevator, but which might be described as chain gearing. The cylinders
+were of the pushing rather than the pulling type used in the Otis system;
+that is, the pressure was introduced behind the plungers, driving them
+out. To the ends of the plungers were fixed smooth-faced sheaves, over
+which were looped heavy quadruple-link pitch chains, one end of each being
+solidly attached to the machine base. The free ends ran under the cylinder
+and made another half-wrap around small sprockets keyed to the main drive
+shaft. As the plungers were forced outward, the free ends of the chain
+moved in the opposite direction, at twice the velocity and linear
+displacement of the plungers. The drive sprockets were thereby revolved,
+driving up the car. Descent was made simply by permitting the cylinders to
+exhaust, the car dropping of its own weight. The over-all gear or ratio of
+the system was the multiplication due to the double purchase of the
+plunger sheaves times the ratio of the chain and drive sprocket diameters:
+2(12.80/1.97) or about 13:1. To drive the car 218 feet to the first
+platform of the Tower the plungers traveled only about 16.5 feet.
+
+To penetrate the inventive rationale behind this strange machine is not
+difficult. Aware of the fundamental dictum of absolute safety before all
+else, the Roux engineers turned logically to the safest known elevator
+type--the direct plunger. This type of elevator, being well suited to low
+rises, formed the main body of European practice at the time, and in this
+fact lay the further attraction of a system firmly based on tradition.
+Since the piers between the ground and first platform could accommodate a
+straight, although inclined run, the solution might obviously have been to
+use an inclined, direct plunger. The only difficulty would have been that
+of drilling a 220-foot, inclined well for the cylinder. While a difficult
+problem, it would not have been insurmountable. What then was the reason
+for using a design vastly more complex? The only reasonable answer that
+presents itself is that the designers, working in a period before the
+Otis bid had been accepted, were attempting to evolve an apparatus capable
+of the complete service to the second platform. The use of a rigid direct
+plunger thus precluded, it became necessary to transpose the basic idea in
+order to adapt it to the curvature of the Tower leg, and at the same time
+retain its inherent quality of safety. Continuing the conceptual sequence,
+the idea of a plunger made in some manner flexible apparently suggested
+itself, becoming the heart of the Roux machines.
+
+
+[Illustration: Figure 29.--Section through cabin of the Otis elevator.
+Note the pivoted floor-sections. As the car traveled, these floor-sections
+were leveled by the operator to compensate for the change of inclination;
+however, they were soon removed because they interfered with the loading
+and unloading of passengers. (From _La Nature_, May 4, 1889, vol. 17, p.
+360.)]
+
+
+Here then was a design exhibiting strange contrast. It was on the one hand
+completely novel, devised expressly for this trying service; yet on the
+other hand it was derived from and fundamentally based on a thoroughly
+traditional system. If nothing else, it was safe beyond question. In
+Eiffel's own words, the Roux lifts "not only were safe, but appeared
+safe; a most desirable feature in lifts traveling to such heights and
+carrying the general public."[12]
+
+The system's shortcomings could hardly be more evident. Friction resulting
+from the more than 320 joints in the flexible pistons, each carrying two
+rollers, plus that from the pitch chains must have been immense. The noise
+created by such multiplicity of parts can only be imagined. Capacity was
+equivalent to that of the Otis system. About 100 people could be carried
+in the double-deck cabin, some standing. The speed, however, was only 200
+feet per minute, understandably low.
+
+If it had been the initial intention of the designers to operate their
+cars to the second platform, they must shortly have become aware of the
+impracticability of this plan, caused by an inherent characteristic of the
+apparatus. As long as the compressive force acted along the longitudinal
+axis of the links, there was no lateral resultant and the only load on the
+small rollers was that due to the dead weight of the link itself. However,
+if a curve had been introduced in the guide channels to increase the
+incline of the upper run, as done by Otis, the force on those links
+traversing the bend would have been eccentric--assuming the car to be in
+the upper section, above the bend. The difference between the two sections
+(based upon the Otis system) was 78 deg.9' minus 54 deg.35', or 23 deg.34', the
+tangent of which equals 0.436. Forty-three percent of the unbalanced
+weight of the car and load would then have borne upon the, say, 12 sets of
+rollers on the curve. The immense frictional load thus added to the entire
+system would certainly have made it dismally inefficient, if not actually
+unworkable.
+
+In spite of Eiffel's public remarks regarding the safety of the Roux
+machinery, in private he did not trouble to conceal his doubts. Otis'
+representative, Hall, discussing this toward the end of Brown's previously
+mentioned report, probably presented a fairly accurate picture of the
+situation. His comments were based on conversations with Eiffel and
+Koechlin:
+
+     Mr. Gibson, Mr. Hanning [who were other Otis employees] and myself
+     came to the unanimous conclusion that Mr. Eiffel had been forced to
+     order those other machines, from outside parties, against his own
+     judgment: and that he was very much in doubt as to their being a
+     practical success--and was, therefore, all the more anxious to put in
+     our machines (which he did have faith in) ... and if the others ate
+     up coal in proportions greatly in excess of ours, he would have it to
+     say ... "Gentlemen, these are my choice of elevators, those are yours
+     &c." There was a published interview ... in which Eiffel stated ...
+     that he was to meet some American gentlemen the following day, who
+     were to provide him with elevators--grand elevators, I think he
+     said....
+
+
+[Illustration: Figure 30.--Upperworks and passenger platforms of the Otis
+system at second level. (From _La Nature_, Aug. 10, 1889, vol. 17, p.
+169.)]
+
+
+The Roux and the Otis systems both drew their water supply from the same
+tanks; also, each system used similar distributing valves (fig. 32)
+operated from the cars. Although no reports have been found of actual
+controlled tests comparing the efficiencies of the Otis and Roux systems,
+a general quantitative comparison may be made from the balance figures
+given for each (p. 40), where it is seen that 2,665 pounds of excess
+tractive effort were allowed to overcome the friction of the Otis
+machinery against 13,856 pounds for the Roux.
+
+
+THE EDOUX SYSTEM
+
+The section of the Tower presenting the least difficulty to elevator
+installation was that above the juncture of the four legs--from the second
+platform to the third, or observation, enclosure. There was no question
+that French equipment could perform this service. The run being perfectly
+straight and vertical, the only unusual demand upon contemporary elevator
+technology was the length of rise--525 feet.
+
+The system ultimately selected (fig. 37) appealed to the Commission
+largely because of a similar one that had been installed in one tower of
+the famous Trocadero[13] and which had been operating successfully for 10
+years. It was the direct plunger system of Leon Edoux, and was, for the
+time, far more rationally contrived than Backmann's helicoidal system.
+Edoux, an old schoolmate of Eiffel's, had built thousands of elevators in
+France and was possibly the country's most successful inventor and
+manufacturer in the field. It is likely that he did not attempt to obtain
+the contract for the elevator equipment in the Tower legs, as his
+experience was based almost entirely on plunger systems, a type, as we
+have seen, not readily adaptable to that situation. What is puzzling was
+the failure of the Commission's members to recognize sooner Edoux's
+obvious ability to provide equipment for the upper run. It may have been
+due to their inexplicable confidence in Backmann.
+
+
+[Illustration: Figure 31.--The French Girard pumps that supplied the Otis
+and Roux systems. (From _La Nature_, Oct. 5, 1889, vol. 17, p. 292.)]
+
+
+The direct plunger elevator was the only type in which European practice
+was in advance of American practice at this time. Not until the beginning
+of the 20th century, when hydraulic systems were forced into competition
+with electrical systems, was the direct plunger elevator improved in
+America to the extent of being practically capable of high rises and
+speeds. Another reason for its early disfavor in the United States was the
+necessity for drilling an expensive plunger well equal in length to the
+rise.[14]
+
+As mentioned, the most serious problem confronting Edoux was the extremely
+high rise of 525 feet. The Trocadero elevator, then the highest plunger
+machine in the world, traveled only about 230 feet. A secondary
+difficulty was the esthetic undesirability of permitting a plunger
+cylinder to project downward a distance equal to such a rise, which would
+have carried it directly into the center of the open area beneath the
+first platform (fig. 6). Both problems were met by an ingenious
+modification of the basic system. The run was divided into two equal
+sections, each of 262 feet, and two cars were used. One operated from the
+bottom of the run at the second platform level to an intermediate platform
+half-way up, while the other operated from this point to the observation
+platform near the top of the Tower. The two sections were of course
+parallel, but offset. A central guide, on the Tower's center-line, running
+the entire 525 feet served both cars, with shorter guides on either
+side--one for the upper and one for the lower run. Thus, each car traveled
+only half the total distance. The two cars were connected, as in the
+Backmann system, by steel cables running over sheaves at the top,
+balancing each other and eliminating the need for counterweights. Two
+driving rams were used. By being placed beneath the upper car, their
+cylinders extended downward only the 262 feet to the second platform and
+so did not project beyond the confines of the system itself.[15] In making
+the upward or downward trip, the passengers had to change from one car to
+the other at the intermediate platform, where the two met and parted (fig.
+39). This transfer was the only undesirable feature of what was, on the
+whole, a thoroughly efficient and well designed work of elevator
+engineering.
+
+
+[Illustration: Figure 32.--The Otis distributor, with valves shown in
+motionless, neutral position. Since the main valve at all times was
+subjected to the full operating pressure, it was necessary to drive this
+valve with a servo piston. The control cable operated only the servo
+piston's valve. (Adapted from Gustave Eiffel, _La Tour de Trois Cents
+Metres_, Paris, 1900, p. 130.)]
+
+[Illustration: Figure 33.--General arrangement of the Roux Combaluzier and
+Lepape elevator.]
+
+[Illustration: Figure 34.--Roux, Combaluzier and Lepape machinery and
+cabin at the Tower's base. (From _La Nature_, Aug. 10, 1889, vol. 17, p.
+168.)]
+
+
+In operation, water was admitted to the two cylinders from a tank on the
+third platform. The resultant hydraulic head was sufficient to force out
+the rams and raise the upper car. As the rams and car rose, the rising
+water level in the cylinders caused a progressive reduction of the
+available head. This negative effect was further heightened by the fact
+that, as the rams moved upward, less and less of their length was
+buoyed by the water within the cylinders, increasing their effective
+weight. These two factors were, however, exactly compensated for by the
+lengthening of the cables on the other side of the pulleys as the lower
+car descended. Perfect balance of the system's dead load for any position
+of the cabins was, therefore, a quality inherent in its design. However,
+there were two extreme conditions of live loading which required
+consideration: the lower car full and the upper empty, or vice versa. To
+permit the upper car to descend under the first condition, the plungers
+were made sufficiently heavy, by the addition of cast iron at their lower
+ends, to overbalance the weight of a capacity load in the lower car. The
+second condition demanded simply that the system be powerful enough to
+lift the unbalanced weight of the plungers plus the weight of passengers
+in the upper car.
+
+As in the other systems, safety was a matter of prime importance. In this
+case, the element of risk lay in the possibility of the suspended car
+falling. The upper car, resting on the rams, was virtually free of such
+danger. Here again the influence of Backmann was felt--a brake of his
+design was applied (fig. 38). It was, true to form, a throwback, similar
+safety devices having proven unsuccessful much earlier. Attached to the
+lower car were two helically threaded vertical rollers, working within
+the hollow guides. Corresponding helical ribs in the guides rotated the
+rollers as the car moved. If the car speed exceeded a set limit, the
+increased resistance offered by the apparatus drove the rollers up into
+friction cups, slowing or stopping the car.
+
+
+[Illustration: Figure 35.--Detail of links in the Roux system. (From
+Gustave Eiffel, _La Tour de Trois Cents Metres_, Paris, 1900, p. 156.)]
+
+[Illustration: Figure 36.--Section of guide trunks in the Roux system.
+(From Gustave Eiffel, _La Tour de Trois Cents Metres_, Paris, 1900, p.
+156.)]
+
+
+The device was considered ineffectual by Edoux and Eiffel, who were aware
+that the ultimate safety of the system resulted from the use of supporting
+cables far heavier than necessary. There were four such cables, with a
+total sectional area of 15.5 square inches. The total maximum load to
+which the cables might be subjected was about 47,000 pounds, producing a
+stress of about 3,000 pounds per square inch compared to a breaking stress
+of 140,000 pounds per square inch--a safety factor of 46![16]
+
+
+[Illustration: Figure 37.--Schematic diagram of the Edoux system. (Adapted
+from Gustave Eiffel, _La Tour de Trois Cents Metres_, Paris, 1900, p.
+175.)]
+
+[Illustration: Figure 38.--Vertical section through lower (suspended)
+Edoux car, showing Backmann helicoidal safety brake. (Adapted from Gustave
+Eiffel, _La Tour Eiffel en 1900_, Paris, 1902, p. 12.)]
+
+
+A curiosity in connection with the Edoux system was the use of Worthington
+(American) pumps (fig. 40) to carry the water exhausted from the cylinders
+back to the supply tanks. No record has been found that might explain why
+this particular exception was made to the "foreign materials" stipulation.
+This exception is even more strange in view of Otis' futile request for
+the same pumps and the fact that any number of native machines must have
+been available. It is possible that Edoux's personal influence was
+sufficient to overcome the authority of the regulation.
+
+
+[Illustration: Figure 39.--Passengers changing cars on Edoux elevator at
+intermediate platform. (From _La Nature_, May 4, 1889, vol. 17, p. 361.)]
+
+[Illustration: Figure 40.--Worthington tandem compound steam pumps, at
+base of the Tower's south pier, supplied water for the Edoux system. The
+tank was at 896 feet, but suction was taken from the top of the cylinders
+at 643 feet; therefore, the pumps worked against a head of only about 250
+feet. (From _La Nature_, Oct. 5, 1889, vol. 17, p. 293.)]
+
+[Illustration: Figure 41.--Recent view of lower car of the Edoux system,
+showing slotted cylindrical guides that enclose the cables.]
+
+
+
+
+Epilogue
+
+
+In 1900, after the customary 11-year period, Paris again prepared for an
+international exposition, about 5 years too early to take advantage of the
+great progress made by the electric elevator. When the Roux machines, the
+weakest element in the Eiffel Tower system, were replaced at this time, it
+was by other hydraulics. Built by the well known French engineering
+organization of Fives-Lilles, the new machines were the ultimate in power,
+control, and general excellence of operation. As in the Otis system, the
+cars ran all the way to the second platform.
+
+The Fives-Lilles equipment reflected the advance of European elevator
+engineering in this short time. The machines were rope-geared and
+incorporated the elegant feature of self-leveling cabins which compensated
+for the varying track inclination. For the 1900 fair, the Otis elevator in
+the south pier was also removed and a wide stairway to the first platform
+built in its place. In 1912, 25 years after Backmann's startling proposal
+to use electricity for his system, the remaining Otis elevator was
+replaced by a small electric one. This innovation was reluctantly
+introduced solely for the purpose of accommodating visitors in the winter
+when the hydraulic systems were shut down due to freezing weather. The
+electric elevator had a short life, being removed in 1922 when the number
+of winter visitors increased far beyond its capacity. However, the two
+hydraulic systems were modified to operate in freezing
+temperatures--presumably by the simple expedient of adding an
+antifreezing chemical to the water--and operation was placed on a
+year-round basis.
+
+Today the two Fives-Lilles hydraulic systems remain in full use; and
+visitors reach the Tower's summit by Edoux's elevator (fig. 41), which is
+all that remains of the original installation.
+
+
+BALANCE OF THE THREE ELEVATOR SYSTEMS
+
+_The Otis System_
+
+Negative effect
+
+  Weight of cabin: 23,900 lb. x sin 78 deg.9' (incline of upper run) 23,390 lb.
+  Live load: 40 persons @150 lb. = 6,000 x sin 78 deg.9'              5,872
+                                                                 ------  -- 29,262 lb.
+
+Positive effect
+
+  Counterweight: 55,000 x sin 54 deg.35' (incline of lower run)
+                 ------------------------------------------
+                            3 (rope gear ratio)                  14,940 lb.
+
+  Weight of piston and chariot:  33,060 x sin 54 deg.35'
+                                 ------------------
+                                     12 (ratio)                   2,245
+
+  Power: 156 p.s.i. x 1,134 sq. in. (piston area)
+         ----------------------------------------
+                     12 (ratio)                                  14,742     31,927 lb.
+
+Excess to overcome friction                                                  2,665 lb.
+
+
+_The Roux, Combaluzier and Lepape System_
+
+Negative effect
+
+  Weight of cabin: 14,100 x sin 54 deg.35'                           11,500 lb.
+  Live load: 100 persons @150 lb. = 15,000 x sin 54 deg.35'          12,220
+                                                                 ------  -- 23,720 lb.
+
+Positive effect
+
+  Counterweight: 6,600 x sin 54 deg.35'                               5,380
+
+  Power: 156 p.s.i. x 2 (pistons) x 1,341.5 sq. in. (piston area)
+         ------------------------------------------
+                         13 (ratio)                              32,196     37,576 lb.
+                                                                 ------     ----------
+Excess to overcome friction                                                 13,856 lb.
+
+
+_The Edoux System_
+
+Negative effect
+
+  Unbalanced weight of plungers (necessary to raise full
+    lower car and weight of cables on lower side)                42,330 lb.
+
+  Live load: 60 persons @150 lb.                                  9,000
+                                                                 ------  -- 51,330 lb.
+
+
+Positive effect
+
+  Power: 227.5 p.s.i. x 2 (plungers) x 124 sq. in. (plunger area)           56,420 lb.
+                                                                            ----------
+  Excess to overcome friction                                                5,090 lb.
+
+
+
+
+Footnotes:
+
+[1] Translated from Jean A. Keim, _La Tour Eiffel_, Paris, 1950.
+
+[2] The foundation footings exerted a pressure on the earth of about 200
+pounds per square foot, roughly one-sixth that of the Washington Monument,
+then the highest structure in the world.
+
+[3] A type of elevator known as the "teagle" was in use in some multistory
+English factories by about 1835. From its description, this elevator
+appears to have been primarily for the use of passengers, but it
+unquestionably carried freight as well. The machine shown in figure 7 had,
+with the exception of a car safety, all the features of later systems
+driven from line shafting--counterweight, control from the car, and
+reversal by straight and crossed belts.
+
+[4] The Otis safety, of which a modified form is still used, consisted
+essentially of a leaf wagon spring, on the car frame, kept strained by the
+tension of the hoisting cables. If these gave way, the spring, released,
+drove dogs into continuous racks on the vertical guides, holding the car
+or platform in place.
+
+[5] A notable exception was the elevator in the Washington Monument.
+Installed in 1880 for raising materials during the structure's final
+period of erection and afterwards converted to passenger service, it was
+for many years the highest-rise elevator in the world (about 500 feet),
+and was certainly among the slowest, having a speed of 50 feet per minute.
+
+[6] Today, although not limited by the machinery, speeds are set at a
+maximum of about 1,400 feet per minute. If higher speeds were used, an
+impractically long express run would be necessary for starting and
+stopping in order to prevent an acceleration so rapid as to be
+uncomfortable to passengers and a strain on the equipment.
+
+[7] Two machines, by Otis, in the Demarest Building, Fifth Avenue and 33d
+Street, New York. They were in use for over 30 years.
+
+[8] Although the eventually successful application of electric power to
+the elevator did not occur until 1904, and therefore goes beyond the
+chronological scope of this discussion, it was of such importance insofar
+as current practice is concerned as to be worthy of brief mention. In that
+year the first gearless traction machine was installed by Otis in a
+Chicago theatre. As the name implies, the cables were not wrapped on a
+drum but passed, from the car, over a grooved sheave directly on the motor
+shaft, the other ends being attached to the counterweights. The result was
+a system of beautiful simplicity, capable of any rise and speed with no
+proportionate increase in the number or size of its parts, and free from
+any possibility of car or weights being drawn into the machinery. This
+system is still the only one used for rises of over 100 feet or so. By the
+time of its introduction, motor controls had been improved to the point of
+complete practicability.
+
+[9] Mechanical transmission of power by wire rope was a well developed
+practice at this time, involving in many instances high powers and
+distances up to a mile. To attempt this system in the Eiffel Tower,
+crowded with structural work, machinery and people, was another matter.
+
+[10] According to Otis Elevator Company, the final price, because of
+extras, was $30,000.
+
+[11] In _Pall Mall Gazette_, as quoted in _The Engineering and Building
+Record and the Sanitary Engineer_, May 25, 1889, vol. 19, p. 345.
+
+[12] From speech at annual summer meeting of Institution of Mechanical
+Engineers, Paris, 1889. Quoted in _Engineering_, July 5, 1889, vol. 48, p.
+18.
+
+[13] Located near the Tower, built for the Paris fair of 1878.
+
+[14] Improved oil-well drilling techniques were influential in the intense
+but short burst of popularity enjoyed by direct plunger systems in the
+United States between 1899 and 1910. In New York, many such systems of
+200-foot rise, and one of 380 feet, were installed.
+
+[15] An obvious question arises here: What prevents a plunger 200 or 300
+feet long and no more than 16 inches in diameter from buckling under its
+compressive loading? The answer is simply that most of this length is not
+in compression but in tension. The Edoux rams, when fully extended,
+virtually hung from the upper car, sustained by the weight of 500 feet of
+cable on the other side of the sheaves. As the upper car descended this
+effect diminished, but as the rams moved back into the cylinders their
+unsupported length was correspondingly reduced.
+
+[16] M. A. Ansaloni, "The Lifts in the Eiffel Tower," quoted in
+_Engineering_, July 5, 1889, vol. 48, p. 23. The strength of steel when
+drawn into wire is increased tremendously. Breaking stresses of 140,000
+p.s.i. were not particularly high at the time. Special cables with
+breaking stresses of up to 370,000 p.s.i. were available.
+
+
+
+
+Transcriber's Notes:
+
+Passages in italics are indicated by _underscore_.
+
+The original was printed in two columns per page.
+
+Illustrations have been moved to the nearest paragraph break.
+
+The following misprints have been corrected:
+  "Trevethick's" corrected to "Trevithick's" (page 5)
+  "then" corrected to "than" (page 14)
+  "smiliar" corrected to "similar" (page 31)
+
+
+
+
+
+
+End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of Elevator Systems of the Eiffel Tower,
+1889, by Robert M. Vogel
+
+*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK ELEVATOR SYSTEMS ***
+
+***** This file should be named 32282.txt or 32282.zip *****
+This and all associated files of various formats will be found in:
+        http://www.gutenberg.org/3/2/2/8/32282/
+
+Produced by Chris Curnow, Joseph Cooper and the Online
+Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net.
+
+
+Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions
+will be renamed.
+
+Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no
+one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation
+(and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without
+permission and without paying copyright royalties.  Special rules,
+set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to
+copying and distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works to
+protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark.  Project
+Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you
+charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission.  If you
+do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the
+rules is very easy.  You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose
+such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and
+research.  They may be modified and printed and given away--you may do
+practically ANYTHING with public domain eBooks.  Redistribution is
+subject to the trademark license, especially commercial
+redistribution.
+
+
+
+*** START: FULL LICENSE ***
+
+THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
+PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK
+
+To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free
+distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work
+(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project
+Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project
+Gutenberg-tm License (available with this file or online at
+http://gutenberg.org/license).
+
+
+Section 1.  General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm
+electronic works
+
+1.A.  By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm
+electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to
+and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property
+(trademark/copyright) agreement.  If you do not agree to abide by all
+the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy
+all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your possession.
+If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the
+terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or
+entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.
+
+1.B.  "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark.  It may only be
+used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who
+agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement.  There are a few
+things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works
+even without complying with the full terms of this agreement.  See
+paragraph 1.C below.  There are a lot of things you can do with Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement
+and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
+works.  See paragraph 1.E below.
+
+1.C.  The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation"
+or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic works.  Nearly all the individual works in the
+collection are in the public domain in the United States.  If an
+individual work is in the public domain in the United States and you are
+located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from
+copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative
+works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg
+are removed.  Of course, we hope that you will support the Project
+Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting free access to electronic works by
+freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of
+this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with
+the work.  You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by
+keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project
+Gutenberg-tm License when you share it without charge with others.
+
+1.D.  The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern
+what you can do with this work.  Copyright laws in most countries are in
+a constant state of change.  If you are outside the United States, check
+the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement
+before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or
+creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project
+Gutenberg-tm work.  The Foundation makes no representations concerning
+the copyright status of any work in any country outside the United
+States.
+
+1.E.  Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:
+
+1.E.1.  The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate
+access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently
+whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the
+phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the phrase "Project
+Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed,
+copied or distributed:
+
+This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with
+almost no restrictions whatsoever.  You may copy it, give it away or
+re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included
+with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org
+
+1.E.2.  If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived
+from the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is
+posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied
+and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees
+or charges.  If you are redistributing or providing access to a work
+with the phrase "Project Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the
+work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1
+through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the
+Project Gutenberg-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or
+1.E.9.
+
+1.E.3.  If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted
+with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
+must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional
+terms imposed by the copyright holder.  Additional terms will be linked
+to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works posted with the
+permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work.
+
+1.E.4.  Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm
+License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this
+work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm.
+
+1.E.5.  Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this
+electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
+prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with
+active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
+Gutenberg-tm License.
+
+1.E.6.  You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
+compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any
+word processing or hypertext form.  However, if you provide access to or
+distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than
+"Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official version
+posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.org),
+you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a
+copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon
+request, of the work in its original "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other
+form.  Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm
+License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.
+
+1.E.7.  Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,
+performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works
+unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
+
+1.E.8.  You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing
+access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided
+that
+
+- You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
+     the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method
+     you already use to calculate your applicable taxes.  The fee is
+     owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he
+     has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the
+     Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation.  Royalty payments
+     must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you
+     prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax
+     returns.  Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and
+     sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the
+     address specified in Section 4, "Information about donations to
+     the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation."
+
+- You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies
+     you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he
+     does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm
+     License.  You must require such a user to return or
+     destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium
+     and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of
+     Project Gutenberg-tm works.
+
+- You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any
+     money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the
+     electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days
+     of receipt of the work.
+
+- You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
+     distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works.
+
+1.E.9.  If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm
+electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set
+forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from
+both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael
+Hart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark.  Contact the
+Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below.
+
+1.F.
+
+1.F.1.  Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable
+effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread
+public domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm
+collection.  Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
+works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain
+"Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or
+corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual
+property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a
+computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by
+your equipment.
+
+1.F.2.  LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right
+of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project
+Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project
+Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project
+Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all
+liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal
+fees.  YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT
+LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
+PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH F3.  YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE
+TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE
+LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR
+INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
+DAMAGE.
+
+1.F.3.  LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a
+defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can
+receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a
+written explanation to the person you received the work from.  If you
+received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with
+your written explanation.  The person or entity that provided you with
+the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a
+refund.  If you received the work electronically, the person or entity
+providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to
+receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund.  If the second copy
+is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further
+opportunities to fix the problem.
+
+1.F.4.  Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth
+in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS' WITH NO OTHER
+WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO
+WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTIBILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.
+
+1.F.5.  Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied
+warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages.
+If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the
+law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be
+interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by
+the applicable state law.  The invalidity or unenforceability of any
+provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.
+
+1.F.6.  INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the
+trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone
+providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance
+with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production,
+promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works,
+harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees,
+that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do
+or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg-tm
+work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any
+Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause.
+
+
+Section  2.  Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm
+
+Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of
+electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers
+including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers.  It exists
+because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from
+people in all walks of life.
+
+Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the
+assistance they need, are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's
+goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will
+remain freely available for generations to come.  In 2001, the Project
+Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure
+and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future generations.
+To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
+and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4
+and the Foundation web page at http://www.pglaf.org.
+
+
+Section 3.  Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
+Foundation
+
+The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit
+501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the
+state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal
+Revenue Service.  The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification
+number is 64-6221541.  Its 501(c)(3) letter is posted at
+http://pglaf.org/fundraising.  Contributions to the Project Gutenberg
+Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent
+permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's laws.
+
+The Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S.
+Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered
+throughout numerous locations.  Its business office is located at
+809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887, email
+business@pglaf.org.  Email contact links and up to date contact
+information can be found at the Foundation's web site and official
+page at http://pglaf.org
+
+For additional contact information:
+     Dr. Gregory B. Newby
+     Chief Executive and Director
+     gbnewby@pglaf.org
+
+
+Section 4.  Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg
+Literary Archive Foundation
+
+Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide
+spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of
+increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be
+freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest
+array of equipment including outdated equipment.  Many small donations
+($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt
+status with the IRS.
+
+The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating
+charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United
+States.  Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a
+considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up
+with these requirements.  We do not solicit donations in locations
+where we have not received written confirmation of compliance.  To
+SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any
+particular state visit http://pglaf.org
+
+While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we
+have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition
+against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who
+approach us with offers to donate.
+
+International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make
+any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
+outside the United States.  U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.
+
+Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation
+methods and addresses.  Donations are accepted in a number of other
+ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations.
+To donate, please visit: http://pglaf.org/donate
+
+
+Section 5.  General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic
+works.
+
+Professor Michael S. Hart is the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm
+concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared
+with anyone.  For thirty years, he produced and distributed Project
+Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support.
+
+
+Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed
+editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S.
+unless a copyright notice is included.  Thus, we do not necessarily
+keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition.
+
+
+Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility:
+
+     http://www.gutenberg.org
+
+This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm,
+including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
+Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to
+subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.
diff --git a/32282.zip b/32282.zip
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..91ff94d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/32282.zip
diff --git a/LICENSE.txt b/LICENSE.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..6312041
--- /dev/null
+++ b/LICENSE.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,11 @@
+This eBook, including all associated images, markup, improvements,
+metadata, and any other content or labor, has been confirmed to be
+in the PUBLIC DOMAIN IN THE UNITED STATES.
+
+Procedures for determining public domain status are described in
+the "Copyright How-To" at https://www.gutenberg.org.
+
+No investigation has been made concerning possible copyrights in
+jurisdictions other than the United States. Anyone seeking to utilize
+this eBook outside of the United States should confirm copyright
+status under the laws that apply to them.
diff --git a/README.md b/README.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..a73c134
--- /dev/null
+++ b/README.md
@@ -0,0 +1,2 @@
+Project Gutenberg (https://www.gutenberg.org) public repository for
+eBook #32282 (https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/32282)