Analysis of the New Technical Aid Swimming Hand Paddles

The US patent office recently published a patent application for a new type of a swim paddle that I thought looked interesting.  Below I will describe the claimed benefits of this paddle along with potential drawbacks and discuss how it could be simplified.

What differentiates this paddle from others is the “attached angled section, which provides instant resistive and visual feedback when a swimming stroke is not properly executed”.

“Technical Aid Swimming Hand Paddles “ by Doyle; Joseph Gordon, 2011:

Here is the background of the problem that the paddle is trying to solve as described in the patent application:

“Throughout the development of swimming stroke mechanics, it is widely accepted that a swimmer’s palm must be perpendicular to the direction of travel and pressing water in the rearward direction. If the swimmer ceases to press water in the rear direction while the hand is still in the water, then the swimmer is not increasing his or her body speed in the desired direction. If the swimmer’s hand becomes non-perpendicular to the overall direction of travel, then the swimmer will essentially be decreasing the amount of resistance at which he or she is able to push the water backwards.”

To help swimmers develop perfect stroke, the “technical aid swimming hand paddles” introduced a special flap that is attached below the paddle and that can open and close like a duck’s beak.

According to the paddle description, when the arm stroke is properly executed, the paddle stays perpendicular to the surface of the water, and the pressure of the water keeps the flap closed (the duck’s beak is closed).  Here is a simple diagram to help you visualize this concept:

When the stroke is not properly executed, the paddle is no longer perpendicular to the surface of the water and the pressure of the water opens the flap (the duck’s beak opens), which immediately generates more resistance and alerts the swimmer.

There is, however another case that is not described in the patent application but is important to consider.  What happens when the hand exits the water?

When a swimmer’s hand exits the water, the hand, although is still perpendicular to the surface of the water, now moves up (not backwards).  During this movement, the water pressure between the “lip” and the paddle will open the paddle flap, which will generate more resistance and alert the swimmer.

Unfortunately, the very mechanism that that was designed to help swimmers develop better technique during the pull phase of the stroke will cause negative effect during the hand exit phase. The open flap will generate more resistance, which will add more pressure to swimmer’s shoulder and might hinder his or her technique.

At this point we might ask ourselves a question, can the design of this paddle be improved to avoid opening of the flap during the hand exit phase of the stroke?

The answer is yes.  We can effectively implement the idea of the “visual feedback” by utilizing existing paddles.  If you attach a regular paddle to the middle finger, you will essentially get exactly the same paddle as the “technical aid swimming hand paddle”, only significantly simpler.

Let’s think of the “technical aid swimming hand paddle” on a swimmer’s hand in abstract as three layers: the hand, the paddle and the flap.  Again, the diagram below will help you visualize this concept:

When the stroke is not properly executed, the flap opens and generates resistance in the area between the paddle and the flap (or between the flap layer and the paddle layer).  When the stroke is executed properly, the flap, the paddle and the hand all stay together (all three layers are staked on top of each other):

Now, if we look at the two images above and think of the  “technical aid swimming hand paddle” in terms of layers then we can notice that the only purpose of the paddle layer is to connect the flap and the swimmer’s hand.  We can also notice that the flap actually serves two purposes: to be the paddle and to serve as a visual feedback of incorrectly executed stroke.

This poses an obvious question, if the only purpose of the paddle is to connect the flap to the swimmer’s hand, why can’t we connect the flap to the swimmer’s hand directly and eliminate the paddle layer altogether?  This will simplify the device without sacrificing any benefits.

As mentioned above, attaching a regular paddle to the middle finger will essentially create the “technical aid swimming hand paddle” but without the extra layer. The absence of the wrist band on the regular paddle means that the paddle can move away from the swimmer’s palm, just like the flap can move away form the actual paddle in the “technical aid swimming hand paddle.”  When the stroke is not perfectly executed, the pressure of the water will move the paddle away from the palm, which will generate more resistance and alert the swimmers, again, just what the flap does in the “technical aid swimming sand paddle.”

Finally, since a regular paddle is flat and doesn’t have the “lip” that the flap on the “technical aid swimming sand paddle” has, it will not open during the hand exit phase and will not generate extra resistance and will not add extra stress to the swimmer’s shoulder.

The “technical aid swimming hand paddle” is an interesting device that has certain benefits.  Unfortunately, it also has a serious drawback.  In my opinion, the design is overly complicated and the goal of this paddle can be achieved by using existing paddles.

No SOPA

No SOPA

Why the U-Shaped Snorkel Has Never Been Embraced by Swimmers

A few months ago I wrote a post about the evolution of the center-mounted snorkel.  Today I will look at another type of swimming snorkel, the U-shaped snorkel.    Over the last hundred years many U-shaped snorkels have been invented but, to the best of my knowledge, swimmers have not embraced any of them.  Below I will show a brief evolution of the U-shaped snorkel and then try to answer the question why swimmers have not adopted them as training gear.

The first device I looked at was not a snorkel per se but it had all the elements of such and theoretically could have been used as a snorkel.  “Respirating Device” invented by Martin Hilgers in 1914:

The purpose of this device was to be used “while massaging the face or treating the eyes.” It had a mouthpiece, a nose clip and the means to secure air-tubes behind the ears.  Even though it was not a U-shaped swimming snorkel, it could have easily become one by making the air tubes a little longer, which is exactly what Percy Greer did when he invented his “Swimmer’s Appliance” in 1928:

As you can see, the air tubes are significantly longer than in the previous device, which allows a swimmer to keep his/her head in the water and still breath.  There was also a “buoyant attachment,” something like a ball, at the top ensuring that the air tubes remain clear of the water. Unfortunately, the “buoyant attachment” in this device is too large and bulky to be used comfortably by most swimmers. It would generate a lot of drag; the faster the swimmer swam, the more drag it would generate!

The 1988 invention by Donald McGilvray, “Exercise snorkel apparatus” solved the problem of keeping the air-tube tops above the surface of the water differently:

This snorkel looks a lot like the device that was described first.  The air tubes curved around the face and were secured behind the ears.  The tubes could either be projected upwards separately or be connected together behind the swimmer’s head.

In 1995 Glenn Albrecht invented the device shown below:

The main difference between this snorkel and the previously described ones is the flexible air tubing.  Again, it had a buoyant slip piece at the top to connect (and adjust the tightness) of the two tubings together. As previously mentioned, you need the buoyant piece to keep the top of the air-tube above the surface of the water.  The buoyant piece, unfortunately, was still too big.

The last snorkel I wanted to show was a recent invention that received a design patent in 2005.  “Snorkel” by Mathais Weigner:

I couldn’t find any information about this snorkel.  It has an interesting looking valve below the mouthpiece.  This snorkel looks a lot like the “Powerbreather” snorkel, that is shown on the right, but I can’t be sure if it is actually the same snorkel.   (here is a video about “Powerbreather”, if you are interested)

A lot more U-shaped snorkels have been designed in the past but most of them look similar to the ones described above and none of them have been widely adopted by swimmers.  The snorkel that was adopted by most swimmers, however, was designed by Dean Garraffa in 1996 and is known as a center-mounted snorkel:

This poses the obvious question: why did the U-shaped snorkel fail and the center-mounted snorkel succeed?

To answer this question we need to first understand the minimum requirements for a swimming training device.  Or to phrase it differently, we need to understand what makes a swimmer dislike a certain swimming device.

Generally, swimmers do not like to use swimming training devices that fall into at least one of the following three categories:

1. A device that is uncomfortable, because discomfort will eventually hinder technique.
2. A device that negatively affects swimmer’s body position in the water, because it will lead to bad habits and bad technique.
3. A device that generates unexpected drag, because it might lead to discomfort, annoyance or bad body position in the water.

The last category, unexpected drag, is the least intuitive so I will briefly explain it.  Every piece of equipment used in the pool generates drag to a certain degree.  Some equipment is specifically designed to generate drag to make swimmers stronger and more powerful (e.g. parachutes, power tower, DragSox, etc.).  Swimmers purchase these devices expecting drag and will continue to use them if the level of drag meets their expectations. On the other hand, much equipment is designed to increase a swimmer’s comfort level in the water (e.g. goggles, caps, etc) or enhance technique (e.g. snorkel).  Swimmers expect these kinds of devices to generate very little drag.

Unlike parachutes, snorkels are considered a device to enhance technique and increase comfort in the water. Swimmers expect very little drag from a snorkel.

If we compare the U-shaped snorkel with the center-mounted snorkel we can see that the fundamental different between the two is the number of air-tubes.  The U-shaped snorkel has two air-tubes and the center-mounted snorkel has only one.  Since each air-tube generates at least some drag, the more air tubes you have the more drag they will generate.

It is possible then to assume that one of the reasons why swimmers have not adopted the U-shaped snorkel is simply because the amount of drag it generates with its two air-tubes swimmers perceive as unacceptable.

Another possible reason why U-tube snorkel failed could be explained by the position that swimmers assume when they push off the wall.  When swimmers push off the wall they try to assume a streamlined position as it reduces drag and can propel them farther and faster in the water.  One of the attributes of being streamlined is tightly squeezing the head between the arms (see image below):

In the streamlined position the air-tubes of the U-shaped snorkel would be between the swimmer’s head and his or her arms.  Squeezing the air-tubes against the swimmer’s head would not only make swimmer’s position less streamlined (unacceptable drag) it would also make it uncomfortable and possibly painful.  The center-mounted snorkel doesn’t have that problem because the air-tube curves around the forehead and between the arms in the streamlined position.

The U-shaped snorkel meets all three categories of what swimmers dislike. The tubing will hit against the head in a streamlined position causing discomfort and/or altering the swimmer’s technique, and it causes much more drag when the expectation is little drag to none. There could be other reasons for the failure of the U-shaped snorkel, but these are plenty to push swimmers away.

The Principle of Separation & the Evolution of the Steam Engine

The two most well known steam engines in the evolution of the steam engine were Newcomen’s and Watt’s engines.  A lot has been written about them as the steam engine is credited for starting the Industrial revolution. What I am going to show in post is how both Newcomen and Watt applied exactly the same principle, the principle of separation, to significantly improve their steam engines over their predecessor’s.

The first known apparatus to create a vacuum by condensing steam was made by Denis Papin in the late 17th century.     In 1675, Papin moved from France to London and started working under Boyle making various experiments with his air pump.

The way his contraption worked was as follows: about a third inch of water was poured into the cylinder and brought to boiling by fire under the cylinder.  When the water was turned into steam it forced the piston up, which was latched at the top.  When the cylinder cooled off the piston was unlatched and the pressure of the atmosphere forced it down.  The thing to note is that the boiler that generated the steam was inside the cylinder.

Even though it was a great apparatus that had the key elements of the future steam engine (piston, cylinder and condensation), it needed further developments to work as a functioning, efficient engine.

Let’s skip forward to 1712 and look at the Newcomen’s engine.

Newcomen's atmospheric engine 1712

Newcomen’s engine consisted, among other things, of a cylinder, a beam, a piston, a separate boiler below the cylinder that provided steam and a valve to control access of cold water into the cylinder to condense steam.  One end of the beam was connected to the piston and the other to a pump bucket.

When steam was condensed, the pressure of the atmosphere forced the piston down along with the end of the beam that was connected to the piston.   The other end of the beam, which acted as a pump handle, was suspended and a pump bucket raised water.

There were several truly ingenious innovations in Newcomen’s design:

1. The idea of condensing steam by spraying water inside the cylinder.
2. The method of making the piston air and watertight inside the cylinder.  At the time it was impossible to make the cylinder perfectly cylindrical, so the piston could not fit tightly inside the cylinder.  Without an airtight fit, the vacuum could not be created in the cylinder.  To solve this problem, Newcomen attached a leather flap around the edges of the cylinder and filled it up with water.  The weight of the water would seal the leather. This was a clever solution!
3. “Snifting valve” to drive any air that accumulated in the cylinder during condensation.
4. Finally, Newcomen automated the openings and closings of the valve that controlled access of water into the cylinder for condensation.   Take a look at “Plug frame’ in the image below.  This long pole was attached to the beam and two tappets T1 and T2, which would close and open the valve W when the piston went down or up the cylinder.   The method completely automated Newcomen’s engine; without this method, a person would have had to stand next to the engine opening and closing the valve during each cycle.

The Newcomen's Engine

The point that I would like to stress is that one of the fundamental differences between Newcomen’s engine and Papin’s apparatus was in the separation of the boiler.  Papin’s contraption had the boiler inside the cylinder; Newcomen put the boiler to generate steam in a separate container.

Once again let’s skip a few years forward and look at Watt’s Engine.

In 1765, James Watt invented the most important innovation in the history of the steam engine.  The Newcomen’s engine required heating up the cylinder to boiling temperature and then cooling it down to room temperature each stroke.  This was inefficient and wasted a lot of steam.  If Watt wanted to create a more efficient engine he had to solve the following contradiction:

The engine cylinder must be kept hot all the time in order to maximize efficiency and the cylinder must be cooled down once per cycle to maximize power.

Watt’s genius solution was in separating the condenser and the cylinder.  This would allow the condensation of steam in a separate container while keeping the main cylinder hot.  This innovation contributed a savings of almost 75% in fuel!

Watt's Engine - Separate Condenser

Just like Newcomen separated Papin’s unit that contained the boiler inside the cylinder into two independent parts, the boiler and the cylinder, Watt separated Newcomen’s unit that contained the condenser inside the cylinder into two independent parts, the cylinder and the condenser.  It was exactly the same principle of separation!

The image below clearly shows this process.

The Principle of Separation & The Evolution of steam engine

This principle of separation is not unique to the steam engine industry only; it could be applied to solving different problems in different industries.  Understanding it might help you solve your own problems.  In one of my future posts I will write up a few examples of innovations from various domains that were invented by applying the principle of separation.

 

 

 

_________________
References

Dickinson, Henry.  A Short History of the Steam Engine.  London: Cambridge University Press, 1939
Cardwell, D.S.L.  From Watt to Clausius.  Ithaca, NY.: Cornell University Press, 1971
Pacey, Arnold.  The Amazing Ingenuity.  Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press, 1992

Reinventing the Same Things Over and Over

Applying for a patent is a time and money consuming process.  It might cost $10,000+ and takes years of waiting and negotiation.  Even if you do get a patent the odds of making any money off of it are very slim.  I remember reading somewhere that less than 2% of all patents end up make money.   However, this does not seem to deter people from applying for patents for truly novel devices but also for, what seems to me, devices that have been invented and patented a long time ago.

Following are two relatively new patent applications for swimming training devices that appear to me to be re-inventions of the same old wheel. It’s a shame, in my opinion, that so much time and energy by obviously creative people is spent on these types of inventions, neither incremental improvement nor true innovation.

The first example is a 2010 patent application for a “Device and method for swimming in-place”:

A device and method for allowing a swimmer to swim in place comprising using a device with a swimmer attachment element adapted to fit over a part of the swimmers body, an anchor attachment element connected to the swimmer attachment element and adapted to attach to an anchor, said anchor configured to immovably absorb the forward thrust of a swimmer.”

Here is the patent that was issued in 1994 for “Stationary swimming apparatus”:

A device for pool use that holds a swimmer stationary. A base strap attaches to a stationary poolside object…  The swimmer can then engage in continuous swimming exercise in a small pool as the stationary swimming apparatus holds the swimmer stationary with respect to the poolside object.

Both of these devices describe the same thing in two different ways.  If you search the patent office web site, you will find several more patent applications for similar devices.

The second example is another 2010 patent application for a more complicated device “Swimmer training device”:

A swimmer training device includes a frame, a variable weight device, a first block, a second block, and a cable.

One embodiment of this invention describes a container that could be filled with water to be used as variable weight.  Compare this device to the patent application that had the same title and was patented in 1973 “Swimmer training device”:

The present disclosure is directed to an apparatus having variable weights which may be attached to a line connected to a belt worn about the waist of a swimmer for applying weight to provide a restraining force against a swimmer attempting to swim away from the device which helps build, condition and tone the various muscles of the human body employed in swimming.

Again, the same device is described in two different ways.  Swimmers know this bulky and expensive device as a power tower.

I should add that even though I think that these two patent applications are filed for devices that have been invented a long time ago, it doesn’t mean they won’t be patented.  If a patent examiner finds that there is something novel in these implementations, the patent might be granted.  However, that will not change the fact that the swimming cord is just a swimmer cord and a power tower is a power tower, regardless of what you use for variable weight.

Conflicting Messages

Taken at a coffee place in Carlsbad, CA:

Gutenberg’s Printing Press

In one of my earlier posts I briefly mentioned how Gutenberg invented the printing press by combining several existing innovations.  The post didn’t provide any details of how he actually did it, which might give the false impression that Gutenberg simply took four existing inventions (wine press, movable type, ink and paper), combined them and miraculously created the most important innovation in the cultural history of humanity.   While it’s true that he did use existing innovations, the pivotal and truly genius invention that made the creation of the printing press possible was invented by Gutenberg himself.

When Gutenberg started working on his printing press, he had the following requirements:

1. Long lasting movable type, so it could be reused many times.
2. Consistent size.
3. The ability to position the characters side by side in order to produce a straight line of print.

To meet these requirements, Gutenberg had to create a special adjustable mold.   Gutenberg’s adjustable mold was the key element that made the creation of the printing press possible.  Since letters have different widths, the walls of the mold had to be adjustable.  For example, the letter M is wider than the letter I, so the mold had to accommodate this difference in size.

Let’s stop and think about this for a second. There were no such things as standardization or mass production in 1435.  To understand how revolutionary Gutenberg and his adjustable mold were, we need only recall Charles Babbage who’s Analytical Engine could not be built because there was no standardization or mold production in the19th century (300 years after Gutenberg). Babbage had to make every piece of his Analytical Engine individually.  If Gutenberg had had to create every character by hand, he would have failed in creating his printing press. The adjustable mold was a real breakthrough and a truly genius invention!

When Gutenberg was 16 years old, he worked at his father’s mint where golden coins were made and engraved.  One of the skills that he learned during that time, metallurgy, later became crucial to his success in inventing the printing press.

The process that Gutenberg established during development of his printing press included several steps.

1. On a steel bar called a punch he chiseled a character that stood up in relief.

2. The punch then was used to produce an impression of the letter into a brass matrix.

3. The matrix was placed into the bottom of Gutenberg’s adjustable mold.

4. Molten lead pored into the mold.

5. After lead cooled, mold was open and the letter was removed.

The letters stood above the metal base at exactly the same height.

6. Then the letters needed to from sentences and paragraphs were put into a special page size chase.

7. Next the chase was put into an iron, flat boxlike frame.  The sides of this frame were pushed together to firmly secure the chase.

8. Ink was applied on all characters in the frame.  Gutenberg developed a special formula for his ink, so it would spread evenly and dried quickly.

9. Finally, he pressed the frame with all characters against paper to produce a print.

Despite his ingenious invention, Gutenberg did not know success in his lifetime. Gutenberg’s partner, who was also a lawyer, sued Gutenberg in 1455 and took over the workshop. The partner invested in the company and expected return on his investment in five years. When five years came along and Gutenberg did not have the money, the partner sued Gutenberg and took ownership of the workshop and all contents, including the printing press and several printed bibles. The partner took credit for inventing the printing press and became quite wealthy by printing and selling books. It was not until after Gutenberg’s death that historians discovered he was the actual inventor of the printing press.

 

 

 

 

___________________
References:

Burke, James. The Day The Universe Changed. Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1995.
Burke, James. Connections. Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1995.
Rees, Fran. Johannes Gutenberg : inventor of the printing press. Minneapolis, Minn: Compass Point Books, 2006.

Swimming Goggles that Track Heart Rate (Updated)

Earlier today I came across an interesting WSJ article about a new breakthrough swimming product (found via swimmersdaily.com). Hind Hobeika, an entrepreneur from Beirut, created a new type of goggles that can measure the swimmer’s heart rate and signal it back to the athlete while the athlete is swimming. It signals back by flashing a light: green if the swimmer’s hear rate is in his/her target range; yellow if the heart rate is below target; and red if it’s above.

As Hind describes:

“In swimming, the traditional way to measure heart rate is to count the number of beats per minute once the race is done. This method is inefficient and inaccurate (and it’s annoying!). The available devices consist of watches and belts that would disturb the motion of the swimmer and slow him down.”

I agree that none of the currently available, off-the-shelf heart rate products allow a swimmer to monitor his heart rate during the actual swim. Typically the heart rate is displayed on a watch, which works fine for runners, triathletes and other athletes but not for swimmers. A swimmer would have to stop swimming in order to check his heart rate on his watch. There is definitely an opportunity for a new product here and I think Butterfleye might just be the right product. The first prototype is still a little bulky but it is just a matter of time before it gets small enough to be worn on swimmers’ goggles without sacrificing comfort or performance.

Although this is the first actual product (that I am aware of) that utilizes goggles to measure and notify the swimmer of his/her heart rate, the idea itself is not new.  In 1995, Harry Linden applied and later received the patent “Multi-function display apparatus” which Google purchased in 2011.

The following excerpt from the description of the patent shows that Harry Linden was trying to solve exactly the same problem as Hind Hobeika with her Butterfleye:

“The product is especially beneficial for providing information to athletes, such as swimmers, runners and cyclists, who have previously not been able to closely monitor their heart rate, time elapsed or laps completed during performance without disrupting the activity. Thus it is a primary object of the present invention to provide a miniature digital display primarily designed to be used by athletes to hands-off monitor various components of their performance.”

[Added Dec. 26th, 2011]

A different solution to the same problem was described in the 2009 patent application, “Heart rate monitor” by John Mix of Finis Inc.

“It is therefore an object of the present invention to provide a waterproof heart rate monitor device to allow a user to measure his or her heart rate underwater through changes in light via the user’s skin and to hear underwater audio signals reporting his or her heart rate via an ear plug…”

In other words, instead of visually displaying it on swimmers’ goggles, the “Heart rate monitor” sends the heart rate data as an audio signal to the swimmer via an ear plug.  (read detailed review of this product here)

 

In the near future we will probably see more heart rate monitors designed specifically for swimmers.   There is definitely a need for such a device and whenever there is a need, there is an opportunity.

How To Effectively Express Complex Information

If you are interested in learning about effective ways of expressing vast and complex information graphically I highly recommend Edward Tufte’s classic “The Visual Display of Quantitative Information.” You won’t be disappointed. It’s an excellent book filled with hundreds of beautiful and elegant graphs and eloquent descriptions. After reading this book you will realize how boring, confusing and sometimes misleading a lot of the graphs and charts are that you see on the Internet these days..

One of the best statistical graphs ever created is about Napoleon’s disastrous invasion of Russia in 1812. Many books have been written about that campaign but the graph that was drawn by the French engineer Charles Joseph Minard “seems to defy the pen of historian by its brutal eloquence” (E. J. Marey).

The beige (top) line represents the size of the French army when it invaded Russia in 1812.   The black (lower) line represents the size of the same army on their retreat from Moscow.  At the beginning of the war the French army had 422,000 soldiers.  By the time they left Russia, they only had 10,000.

This is not just a graph.  It’s a piece of Art and a History on one page.  Just by looking at it for a few seconds, you can’t help but imagine the entire campaign, from start to finish:

Thinking that it will be another quick victory for the great Napoleon army, the French invaded Russia in 1812 and started their march towards Moscow.   The spirit was high in the beginning but as they got deeper into vast Russia they started to lose more and more people.  By the time Napoleon reached Vitebsk (roughly half way to Moscow), his army had shrunk to 175,000 men.

Napoleon was determined to take Moscow, so the French kept on going.   Finally in the fall, Napoleon’s army arrived in Moscow.  But it costs him dearly; more than 300,000 of his men died.  Only 100,000 made it to Moscow.  To make a grim situation even worse, when the Russians evacuated Moscow, they burned it to the ground rather than allow the invaders to occupy.  It was something Napoleon did not foresee.  His army was tired, hungry and demoralized.  More than anything, they needed food, but there was no food to be found and the Russian winter was about to set in.  Desperate, Napoleon decided to go back and so his retreat began.

By November 9th, the temperature started to drop.  The French army was not prepared for the Russian winter.  People were dying left and right from cold and hunger.  By the time Napoleon crossed Berezina River (roughly two thirds of the way back), he lost another 75,000 of his soldiers.   The temperature dropped even lower, sometimes reaching as low as -30 degrees.  When Napoleon finally reached Poland, there were only 10,000 men left in his army.

The scope of this epic disaster can be gleaned in just a look at this chart. Thousands of miles were crossed and 410,000 people died (just on the French side). You can visualize Napoleon’s entire campaign of 1812 simply by looking at Minard’s graph.  This image is truly worth a thousands words.

You will find many more examples of similarly powerful graphs in Tufte’s book.   Here is one more graph from the beginning of the 19th century that I found very effective.  It’s a graph by William Playfair that shows the population and tax revenue of several European countries.

Source: The Visual Display of Quantitative Information (Tufte)

Circles represent countries.  The red line to the left of each circle represents population and the orange line on the right of each circle – tax revenue.  The “dotted lines drawn between the population and revenue are merely intended to connect together the lines belonging to the same country.  The ascent of each of those lines being from right to left, or from left to right, shows whether in proportion to its population the country is burdened with heavy taxes.”

Playfair’s goal was to effectively express “what he regarded as excessive taxation of Britain.” I marked Britain with a black arrow.  The result speaks for itself.

_____________

References

Tuftel, Edward.  The visual Display of Quantitative Information. Cheshire: Graphics Press, 2006.

Making Connections Between Seemingly Unrelated Domains

I have always been interested in the way great scientists and inventors are able to make connections (or cross-appropriations) between seemingly unrelated domains. Being able to see relationships like these enables one to come up with truly ingenious solutions. Some of the connections might seem obvious to us now, but they only seem so in retrospect. Somebody had to be the first one to notice and implement them. What follows is a few examples of these kinds of connections.

Analytical Engine — Charles Babbage

Charles Babbage is considered by most science historians to be the grandfather of modern computing. He was a prolific inventor but he is most known for his work on the Analytical Engine. The analytical Engine was a revolutionary idea in the beginning of the 19th century and far ahead of its time. It was supposed to be able to add, deduct, multiply and divide. The mathematical tables at the time were computed by humans and were full of errors. Babbage envisioned that his Analytical Engine would completely eliminate the human (and human error) from the process of counting. To achieve this, there had to be a way to instruct the machine to perform specific operations, what we today call programming. Instead of creating something from scratch, Babbage borrowed the concept of the punch card from Jacquard’s loom. In both instances, the punch card would convey a series of instructions. In the textile factory, the instructions were sent to a loom and in the Analytical Engine, sent to an engine to perform mathematical calculations. He made the mental leap from the textile industry and a specific loom to an engine that counts, a totally novel concept that was not fully realized in the inventor’s lifetime.

Jacquard's Loom

Plaster Cast — Nikolai Pirogov

The great Russian surgeon, Nikolai Pirogov, is considered a founding father of field surgery. In the mid 19th century, if a soldier broke a leg during combat, it was sure to be amputated. There were no other options at the time as the method of casting a broken limb didn’t not yet exist. While at his sculptor friend’s studio, Pirogov noticed how his friend prepared a substance to be used for the creation of a new sculpture — plaster. Later that day Pirogov made the connection between a sculptor’s plaster cast and a soldier’s broken leg. He used plaster to create casts for broken legs and saved thousands of soldiers from amputation. He revolutionized orthopedic medicine using a material and a concept that artists had been utilizing for thousands of years.

Infant Incubator — Stephane Tarnier

The infant mortality rate in the 19th century was unimaginably high. One out of five newborn babies died in the first couple of months. Stephane Tarnier, a Parisian obstetrician, was acutely aware of this problem. During one of his visits to a local Zoo, he attended an exhibit of chicken incubators and noticed how hatchlings were put in the warm inclosure. Tarnier was able to connect the chicken incubator with temperature regulation for newborn babies. He ordered a special “baby-warming” device which was responsible for reducing the infant mortality rate by 28%.

Printing Press — Johannes Gutenberg

Before the printing press was invented almost no one could write, few could read and knowledge was spread orally. After the invention of the printing press, literacy became common, literature began to flourish, news “papers” started and knowledge started to spread through printed materials.

Johannes Gutenberg invented the printing press by connecting four innovations that had been invented by other people before him: Ink, Paper, Wine press and Movable type. By combining the four existing products into one, Gutenberg invented a device that revolutionized the printing industry. In the first 50 years after the invention of the printing press 8 million books were printed!

Anatomical Atlas — Nikolai Pirogov

It’s hard to underestimate how important it is that a surgeon knows the precise location of each human organ. In the mid nineteen hundreds, however, there were no books that would display the location of human organs with detailed precision. To create an anatomical atlas, one would have to perform an autopsy and record locations of each organ. Unfortunately, when an autopsy was performed, rushing air into the opening would change the position of the organs. As a result, anatomical atlases of the time only depicted approximate locations of human organs.

One winter day, while walking through an open market, Pirogov noticed frozen pig carcasses and later made the connection between a frozen pig carcass and a human body. By freezing the body before performing an autopsy he was able to preserve the precise location of each human organ. (There were no freezers at the time, so he would leave the bodies outside for days in the frigid Russian winter!) In 1852 Pirogov published his Anatomical Atlas which was the first atlas to display the precise locations of each human organ.

Here is a simple mind map to help you visualize the described connections.

____________

REFERENCES

Doron, Swade. The Cogwheel Brain. London: Little, Brown and Company, 2000
Porudominski, V. Pirogov. Moscow: Molodaia Gvardia, 1965
Tolstoy, Ivan. The Knowledge and The Power. Edinburgh: Canongate Books Ltd., 1990
Tarde, Gabriel. The Laws of Imitations. New York: H. Holt and Company, 1903
Johnson, Steven. Where Good Ideas Come From. New York: Reverhead Books, 2010
Burke, James. The Day The Universe Changed. New York: Little, Brown and Company, 1995