Loading...
Title : "The most obvious fix would have been to buffet the paper upward from below using a device called an air knife."
link : "The most obvious fix would have been to buffet the paper upward from below using a device called an air knife."
"The most obvious fix would have been to buffet the paper upward from below using a device called an air knife."
"This was off limits, however, because the bottom side was coated with loose toner. 'An air knife will just blow the toner right off,' Ruiz said. Another possibility was to place 'fingers'—small, projecting pieces of plastic—where they could support the corners as they began to droop. 'That might create a higher jam rate on different paper shapes,' an engineer said—it could be a 'stub point.' A mystified silence descended. A mechanical engineer named Dave Breed pointed toward the upside-down conveyor belt. 'The vacuum pump actually works by pulling air through holes in the belts,' he said. 'So what is the pattern of those holes relative to the corners? Maybe there’s no suction there.' On the whiteboard, Ruiz sketched a diagram of the conveyor belt—the V.P.T., or vacuum-paper transport—showing the holes through which the suction operated. 'Optimize belt pattern,' he wrote. 'If my understanding of air systems is right,' Breed went on, 'then the force that gets a sheet moving isn’t really pressure—it’s flow.'... By this point, Ruiz appeared to be vibrating. 'Here’s a stupid idea,' he said. 'Bernoulli!'"This is why I love The New Yorker. Every once in a while it will get me to read — with interest and amusement — about something I wouldn't have thought about let alone thought I could get interested in.
This article is "Why Paper Jams Persist/A trivial problem reveals the limits of technology" by Joshua Rothman.
My all-time favorite New Yorker article like that is from 2014: "In Deep/The dark and dangerous world of extreme cavers" by Burkhard Bilger.
And I must admit that the only reason I actually do get into these articles is because I subscribe to an audio version of the magazine and don't have the option to observe that this might be one of those arcane, interesting things I love so much and then just keep flipping the page, vaguely intending to return and make a go of it.
"This was off limits, however, because the bottom side was coated with loose toner. 'An air knife will just blow the toner right off,' Ruiz said. Another possibility was to place 'fingers'—small, projecting pieces of plastic—where they could support the corners as they began to droop. 'That might create a higher jam rate on different paper shapes,' an engineer said—it could be a 'stub point.' A mystified silence descended. A mechanical engineer named Dave Breed pointed toward the upside-down conveyor belt. 'The vacuum pump actually works by pulling air through holes in the belts,' he said. 'So what is the pattern of those holes relative to the corners? Maybe there’s no suction there.' On the whiteboard, Ruiz sketched a diagram of the conveyor belt—the V.P.T., or vacuum-paper transport—showing the holes through which the suction operated. 'Optimize belt pattern,' he wrote. 'If my understanding of air systems is right,' Breed went on, 'then the force that gets a sheet moving isn’t really pressure—it’s flow.'... By this point, Ruiz appeared to be vibrating. 'Here’s a stupid idea,' he said. 'Bernoulli!'"
This is why I love The New
This is why I love The New
Loading...
Yorker. Every once in a while it will get me to read — with interest and amusement — about something I wouldn't have thought about let alone thought I could get interested in.
This article is "Why Paper Jams Persist/A trivial problem reveals the limits of technology" by Joshua Rothman.
My all-time favorite New Yorker article like that is from 2014: "In Deep/The dark and dangerous world of extreme cavers" by Burkhard Bilger.
And I must admit that the only reason I actually do get into these articles is because I subscribe to an audio version of the magazine and don't have the option to observe that this might be one of those arcane, interesting things I love so much and then just keep flipping the page, vaguely intending to return and make a go of it.
This article is "Why Paper Jams Persist/A trivial problem reveals the limits of technology" by Joshua Rothman.
My all-time favorite New Yorker article like that is from 2014: "In Deep/The dark and dangerous world of extreme cavers" by Burkhard Bilger.
And I must admit that the only reason I actually do get into these articles is because I subscribe to an audio version of the magazine and don't have the option to observe that this might be one of those arcane, interesting things I love so much and then just keep flipping the page, vaguely intending to return and make a go of it.
Thus articles "The most obvious fix would have been to buffet the paper upward from below using a device called an air knife."
that is all articles "The most obvious fix would have been to buffet the paper upward from below using a device called an air knife." This time, hopefully can provide benefits to all of you. Okay, see you in another article posting.
You now read the article "The most obvious fix would have been to buffet the paper upward from below using a device called an air knife." with the link address https://welcometoamerican.blogspot.com/2018/02/the-most-obvious-fix-would-have-been-to.html
0 Response to ""The most obvious fix would have been to buffet the paper upward from below using a device called an air knife.""
Post a Comment