Talk:Paper machine

After reading several 19th century books on paper-making history, in particular, the Fourdrinier Paper-Making Machine from Paper Manufacturing in the United States, 1916, ^[1], I find nothing to support the claim that Charles Kinsey had any significant contribution in the development of the Fourdrinier paper-making machine. In fact, Fourdriner's British patent of July 1806 pre-dates by almost a year Kinsey's US patent of May 1807. Further, the books I have read give credit to Louis Robert in France.

Therefore, until someone more knowledgeable than I can furnish references to support returning it, I am removing the following paragraph:

"Invented by Charles Kinsey of Paterson, New Jersey with foreign patents secured in 1807 and 1808, the "wooden man" as it was called (owing to the prototype being made entirely from wood), became the Fourdrinier Machine after Kinsey's rights were conveyed to Messrs. H. and F. Fourdrinier of France, who improved on its design."

This paragraph of information appears to come from a web page on ancestry ^[2] which is in error when referring to "H. and F." Fourdriner, since Henry collaborated with his brother Sealy. So who is "F" ?

IGE

I added some images that I found on Wikimedia today. They're 1. not all from the same place (though the Florida resource that was kind enough to upload two of them has more images), 2. black and white, and 3. not a 'perfect fit' ... but they're what's available.

It'd be great if someone could diagram the process. It's complicated and an overview graphic would help a lot. Twang (talk) 19:07, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Added a diagram and removed the reqdiagram tag. I drew on a number of illustration on the 'net, but like all these things, every picture shows a slightly different machine. Hope this is correct. Egmason (talk) 03:34, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

A reference is only good if someone can retreive the document using it. A proper citation might read something like "Section V of course notes on "Care and feeding of wumpuses", presented at a seminar by Professor Hoople, Miskatonic University, (Erewhon campus), October 13-21, 1998 " At least then the hapless reader has a chance of finding out where you obtained the occult insider knowledge that you've emitted into the article. Saying someone-or-other offerd a course is no good at all. --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:31, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

The references are labeled as appropriate for the sources, which are the paper industry's technical association. They do not have ISBNs, etc. and have multiple authors, which can be seen for some of the publications by looking at the links. They are not available in most libraries; however, there are a handufull of pulp and paper schools around the world that may have a few of them. One you might try is the library of Institute of Paper Science and Technology at Georgia Tech.

In the case of Paper machine, the material is so specialized that the industry technical associations and trade magazines are practically the only ones who publish. There are a few textbooks for the handful of schools around the world that teach paper science, but I am not aware of any particular texts that are as good as the TAPPI publications for this particular subject. Perhaps someone can add a few as citations.Phmoreno (talk) 14:32, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

You're someone. You're the one offering these occult documents as references. You're the subject-matter expert, self-described. It would be nice if you would tell us which documents you have in mind. There's no copyright page? Edition number? No editor? Publication number? A stock number? Catalog number? Surely there's something you tell whoever answers the phone at the Pulp and Paper Industry Publications Department and Gift Shop to identify which 3-ring binder of wisdom you are trying to purchase? There's got to be a date - what's true of pulp and paper in 1911 may no longer be true in 2011 or even 1961. Open the binder, look for the copyright page, tell us what's written there! This is NOT hard. It's an industry, not the secrets of Scientology or Freemasonry - surely there's sources that can be cited. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:46, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

In my previous post I suggested you click on the links in the references and most will take you to the page in the TAPPI catalog with the material cited. I will be adding some more citations with links in the future.Phmoreno (talk) 15:06, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, I just don't get it. After all the complaining about where to find the material I finally directed the reader to it then you undid the links. And no, it is not SPAM! This is the industry's technical association and they don't particularly care if you buy the information or not. It is a nonprofit technical organization! People link other books to Amzaon, etc. on Wikipedia all the time. This is no different.Phmoreno (talk) 00:52, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

This is little more than a definition of a small part of a machine Derek Andrews (talk) 11:45, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Go for it. Though we do love parts lists on the WP. --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:45, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support The headbox article is a stem and by itself a headbox does not merit an article. It's far too specialized for anything other than a paper technology text.Phmoreno (talk) 20:12, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

I would like to know figures like "production of 1 ton of paper needs 2 hours of work (production workers). --Präziser (talk) 08:42, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

I will soon add a sheeting section as important part of paper process. Here only winding is given in brief but not other mentions. Anubhavmpm (talk) 08:18, 30 June 2022 (UTC)