diff options
Diffstat (limited to '32282-8.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | 32282-8.txt | 2019 |
1 files changed, 2019 insertions, 0 deletions
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. |