Talk:John W. Nystrom

Quote

"I am not afraid, or do not hesitate, to advocate a binary system of arithmetic and metrology. I know I have nature on my side; if I do not succeed to impress upon you its utility and great importance to mankind, it will reflect that much less credit upon our generation, upon scientific men and philosophers."
(Quotation: John W. Nystrom, ca. 1863)

Since there is no citation for this quote (even the year is given with uncertainty), I am removing it. If anyone can verify a source, feel free to add it back to the article.

--Wechselstrom 07:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Found it at http://ask.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=59136&cid=5642892 --Luke-Jr (talk) 00:09, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Florence Mean Time graphic

I removed the graphic labelled "Florence Mean Time" because it depicts a hexadecimal clock that is unrelated to Nystrom's. Some readers may be confused into thinking that it represents Nystrom's original design or a modern incarnation of his design. It represents neither, so it doesn't belong on this page. One of Nystrom's articles in the Journal of the Franklin Institute had a nice graphic of his clockface. Unfortunately, my photocopy of it is currently in storage, but that would be a graphic well worth putting on this page.

Wechselstrom (talk) 22:35, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, Google has the real graphic (and the rest of Nystrom's book). See:

http://books.google.com/books?id=aNYGAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA105&source=gbs_selected_pages&cad=0_1#PPA34,M1

Wechselstrom (talk) 23:07, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I uploaded an image of the clockface and added it to the page. --Wechselstrom (talk) 21:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I haven't been here in a while, but I see that someone arbitrarily replaced my PNG image with a JPG without any explanation. Is there a policy that PNG is an unacceptable file format? I also see that someone changed the caption, which is now incorrect. Nystrom invented his own digits for 9-F, not 8-F. This is obvious from the image itself. I'm not sure why anyone changed the original caption, but I am reverting it back.

--Wechselstrom (talk) 18:03, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Tonal System (hard copy)

If anyone wants a physical copy, I formatted and uploaded Google's scan to Lulu-- http://www.lulu dot com/content/paperback-book/tonal-system/8540271 (if this is considered spam, I apologize-- just wanted to save anyone else wanting a copy trouble) --Luke-Jr (talk) 00:13, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

The "Success" of the Tonal System

Two times now, anonymous editors have changed the wording of the article to suggest that the Tonal System has been adopted somewhere. I have twice reverted that wording because there is no reference given to indicate who, where, or when the Tonal System was adopted. Undoubtedly, there may be fans somewhere on the Internet, but that does not constitute "success" for a system of metrology.

--Wechselstrom (talk) 22:51, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

The anonymous edits were made by:

• 71.1.73.218 (talk)
• 98.179.29.76 (talk)

If anyone can show proof that the system is being used somewhere in a notable fashion, I will let their wording remain.

--Wechselstrom (talk) 22:56, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

The wording does not imply success. It is merely neutral. To say it "was never adopted" means nobody has ever used it. That's an awful big generalization, since people DO use it. Successful or not, it has been adopted at least in small circles. Furthermore the "never adopted" language implies a certain future outcome. An encyclopedia should stick to past/present facts, not attempt to predict or influence the future. --71.1.73.218 (talk) 19:27, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

If people do use the Tonal System, as you claim, who are these people? Where is a legitimate reference to the fact that even small circles of people are using this system? It is not enough to say that someone somewhere is using the system. You have to have a reference indicating who is using it. If only a handful of people use it, then the language needs to reflect that in order to avoid suggestion that it has gained widespread adoption. Furthermore, saying that something was "never adopted" makes no implication about the future whatsoever. It is a past tense statement and a past fact. If the system gains widespread adoption in the future, that statement could easily be updated. In the meantime, I am sticking to "past/present facts" (as you suggest).

--Wechselstrom (talk) 03:31, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Your wording is better now, but I still suggest that you reference who is using the system, particularly if it is just a handful of enthusiasts. That would provide better context. --Wechselstrom (talk) 03:34, 16 April 2011 (UTC)