erection+time

SUBJECT AREA: Civil engineering, Domestic appliances and interiors, Mechanical, pneumatic and hydraulic engineering, Ports and shipping

[br]

[br]

[br]

As an engineer Booth contributed to the design of engines for Royal Navy battleships, designed and supervised the erection of a number of great wheels (in Blackpool, Vienna and Paris) and later designed factories and bridges.

In 1900 he attended a demonstration, at St Paneras Station in London, of a new form of railway carriage cleaner that was supposed to blow the dirt into a container. It was not a very successful experiment and Booth, having considered the problem carefully, decided that sucking might be better than blowing. He tried out his idea by placing a piece of damp cloth over an upholstered armchair. When he sucked air by mouth through his cloth the dirt upon it was tangible proof of his theory.

Various attempts were being made at this time, especially in America, to find a successful cleaner of carpets and upholstery. Booth produced the first truly satisfactory machine, which he patented in 1901, and coined the term "vacuum cleaner". He formed the Vacuum Cleaner Co. (later to become Goblin BVC Ltd) and began to manufacture his machines. For some years the company provided a cleaning service to town houses, using a large and costly vacuum cleaner (the first model cost £350). Painted scarlet, it measured 54×10×42 in. (137×25×110 cm) and was powered by a petrol-driven 5 hp piston engine. It was transported through the streets on a horse-driven van and was handled by a team of operators who parked outside the house to be cleaned. With the aid of several hundred feet of flexible hose extending from the cleaner through the windows into all the rooms, the machine sucked the dirt of decades from the carpets; at the first cleaning the weight of many such carpets was reduced by 50 per cent as the dirt was sucked away.

Many attempts were made in Europe and America to produce a smaller and less expensive machine. Booth himself designed the chief British model in 1906, the Trolley- Vac, which was wheeled around the house on a trolley. Still elaborate, expensive and heavy, this machine could, however, be operated inside a room and was powered from an electric light fitting. It consisted of a sophisticated electric motor and a belt-driven rotary vacuum pump. Various hoses and fitments made possible the cleaning of many different surfaces and the dust was trapped in a cloth filter within a small metal canister. It was a superb vacuum cleaner but cost 35 guineas and weighed a hundredweight (50 kg), so it was difficult to take upstairs.

Various alternative machines that were cheaper and lighter were devised, but none was truly efficient until a prototype that married a small electric motor to the machine was produced in 1907 in America.

[br]

SUBJECT AREA: Paper and printing

[br]

[br]

[br]

Fourdrinier's father was a paper manufacturer and stationer of London, from a family of French Protestant origin. Henry took up the same trade and, with his brother Sealy (d. 1847), devoted many years to developing the papermaking machine. Their first patent was taken out in 1801, but success was still far off. A machine for making paper had been invented a few years previously by Nicolas Robert at the Didot's mill at Essonnes, south of Paris. Robert quarrelled with the Didots, who then contacted their brother-in-law in England, John Gamble, in an attempt to raise capital for a larger machine. Gamble and the Fourdriniers called in the engineer Bryan Donkin, and between them they patented a much improved machine in 1807. In the new machine, the paper pulp flowed on to a moving continuous woven wire screen and was then squeezed between rollers to remove much of the water. The paper thus formed was transferred to a felt blanket and passed through a second press to remove more water, before being wound while still wet on to a drum. For the first time, a continuous sheet of paper could be made. Other inventors soon made further improvements: in 1817 John Dickinson obtained a patent for sizing baths to improve the surface of the paper; while in 1820 Thomas Crompton patented a steam-heated drum round which the paper was passed to speed up the drying process. The development cost of £60,000 bankrupted the brothers. Although Parliament extended the patent for fourteen years, and the machine was widely adopted, they never reaped much profit from it. Tsar Alexander of Russia became interested in the papermaking machine while on a visit to England in 1814 and promised Henry Fourdrinier £700 per year for ten years for super-intending the erection of two machines in Russia; Henry carried out the work, but he received no payment. At the age of 72 he travelled to St Petersburg to seek recompense from the Tsar's successor Nicholas I, but to no avail. Eventually, on a motion in the House of Commons, the British Government awarded Fourdrinier a payment of £7,000. The paper trade, sensing the inadequacy of this sum, augmented it with a further sum which they subscribed so that an annuity could be purchased for Henry, then the only surviving brother, and his two daughters, to enable them to live in modest comfort. From its invention in ancient China (see Cai Lun), its appearance in the Middle Ages in Europe and through the first three and a half centuries of printing, every sheet of paper had to made by hand. The daily output of a hand-made paper mill was only 60–100 lb (27–45 kg), whereas the new machine increased that tenfold. Even higher speeds were achieved, with corresponding reductions in cost; the old mills could not possibly have kept pace with the new mechanical printing presses. The Fourdrinier machine was thus an essential element in the technological developments that brought about the revolution in the production of reading matter of all kinds during the nineteenth century. The high-speed, giant paper-making machines of the late twentieth century work on the same principle as the Fourdrinier of 1807.

[br]

SUBJECT AREA: Architecture and building, Civil engineering

[br]

[br]

[br]

The American skyscraper was, in the 1870s and 1880s, very much the creation of what came to be known as the Chicago school of architecture. It was the most important American contribution to the urban architectural scene. At this time conditions were ripe for this type of office development, and in the big cities, notably Chicago and New York, steeply rising land values provided the incentive to build high; the structural means to do so had been triggered by the then low costs of making quality iron and steel. The skyscraper appeared after the invention of the passenger lift by Otis and the pioneer steel-frame work of Jenney. In 1875 Holabird was working in Jenney's office in Chicago. By 1883 he had set up in private practice, joined by another young architect, Martin Roche (1855–1927), and together they were responsible for the Tacoma Building (1887–9) in Chicago. In this structure the two front façades were entirely non-load-bearing and were carried by an internal steel skeleton; only the rear walls were load-bearing. The design of the building was not revolutionary (this had to wait for L.H. Sullivan) but was traditional in form. It was the possibility of being able to avoid load-bearing outer walls that enabled a building to rise above some nine storeys, and the thirteen-storeyed Tacoma Building pointed the way to the future development of the skyscraper. The firm of Holabird \& Roche continued in the following decades in Chicago to design and construct further high-quality, although lower, commercial buildings such as those in South Michigan Avenue and the McClurg Building. However, they are best remembered for their contribution in engineering to the development of high-rise construction.

[br]

SUBJECT AREA: Textiles

[br]

[br]

[br]

John Lombe's father, Henry Lombe, was a worsted weaver who married twice. John was the second son of the second marriage and was still a baby when his father died in 1695. John, a native of the Eastern Counties, was apprenticed to a trade and employed by Thomas Cotchett in the erection of Cotchett's silk mill at Derby, which soon failed however. Lombe went to Italy, or was sent there by his elder half-brother, Thomas, to discover the secrets of their throwing machinery while employed in a silk mill in Piedmont. He returned to England in 1716 or 1717, bringing with him two expert Italian workmen.

Thomas Lombe was a prosperous London merchant who financed the construction of a new water-powered silk mill at Derby which is said to have cost over £30,000. John arranged with the town Corporation for the lease of the island in the River Derwent, where Cotchett had erected his mill. During the four years of its construction, John first set up the throwing machines in other parts of the town. The machines were driven manually there, and their product helped to defray the costs of the mill. The silk-throwing machine was very complex. The water wheel powered a horizontal shaft that was under the floor and on which were placed gearwheels to drive vertical shafts upwards through the different floors. The throwing machines were circular, with the vertical shafts running through the middle. The doubled silk threads had previously been wound on bobbins which were placed on spindles with wire flyers at intervals around the outer circumference of the machine. The bobbins were free to rotate on the spindles while the spindles and flyers were driven by the periphery of a horizontal wheel fixed to the vertical shaft. Another horizontal wheel set a little above the first turned the starwheels, to which were attached reels for winding the silk off the bobbins below. Three or four sets of these spindles and reels were placed above each other on the same driving shaft. The machine was very complicated for the time and must have been expensive to build and maintain.

John lived just long enough to see the mill in operation, for he died in 1722 after a painful illness said to have been the result of poison administered by an Italian woman in revenge for his having stolen the invention and for the injury he was causing the Italian trade. The funeral was said to have been the most superb ever known in Derby.

[br]

SUBJECT AREA: Agricultural and food technology

[br]

[br]

[br]

Little is known for certain about William Marshall's early life, other than that he was baptized at Sinnington in the West Riding of Yorkshire. On his own account he was involved in trade in the West Indies from the age of 15 for a period of fourteen years. It is assumed that he was financially successful in this, for on his return to England in 1774 he was able to purchase Addisham Farm in Surrey. Having sacked his bailiff he determined to keep a minute book relating to all transactions on the farm, which he was now managing for himself. On these entries he made additional comments. The publication of these writings was the beginning of a substantial review of agriculture in Britain and a criticism of existing practices. From 1779 he acted as agent on a Norfolk estate, and his five years in that position resulted in The Rural Economy of Norfolk, the first of a series of county reviews that he was to write, intending the somewhat ambitious task of surveying the whole country. By 1808 Marshall had accumulated sufficient capital to be able to purchase a substantial property in the Vale of Cleveland, where he lived for the rest of his life. At the time of his death he was engaged in the erection of a building to serve as an agricultural college; the same building is now a rural-life museum.

[br]

ἀνάστασις, εως, ἡ (s. ἀνίστημι; Aeschyl., Hdt.+ in var. mngs.).

① a change for the better in status, rising up, rise (La 3:63; Zech 3:8; Jos., Ant. 17, 212; 18, 301 [here of the ‘erection’ of a statue]) κεῖται εἰς πτῶσιν καὶ ἀ. πολλῶν he is destined for the fall and rise of many of Jesus Lk 2:34, i.e. because of him many will fall and others will rise, viz. in relation to God (for contrast w. πτῶσις cp. Evagrius Pont., Sent. 5, 19 p. 327 Frankenberg: ἡ μικρὰ τ. σώματος ἀνάστασίς ἐστιν ἡ μετάθεσις αὐτοῦ ἐκ πτώσεως τ. ἀσελγείας εἰς τὴν τ. ἁγιασμοῦ ἀνάστασιν).—Esp.

② resurrection from the dead, resurrection (Aeschyl., Eum. 648 ἅπαξ θανόντος οὔτις ἐστʼ ἀ. [cp. Job 7:9f; 16:22]; Ps.-Lucian, De Salt. 45; Ael. Aristid. 32, 25 K.=12 p. 142 D.; 46 p. 300 D.; IGR IV 743, 25 [ο]ἱ δὴ δ[είλ]αιοι πάντ[ες] εἰς ἀ[νά]στασιν|[----][the stone breaks off after ἀ. and some think that βλέποντες or the like is to be supplied]; 2 Macc 7:14; 12:43), and so

ⓐ in the past: of Jesus’ res. (Orig., C. Cels. 5, 57, 25) Ac 1:22; 2:31; 4:33; Ro 6:5; Phil 3:10 (JFitzmyer, BRigaux Festschr., ’70, 411–25); 1 Pt 3:21; 1 Cl 42:3; ISm 3:1, 3; in more detail ἀ. ἐκ νεκρῶν 1 Pt 1:3; ἀ. νεκρῶν res. from the dead Ro 1:4; w. the passion of Jesus IEph 20:1; Mg 11; Tr ins; Phld ins; 8:2; 9:2; Sm 7:2; 12:2; cp. 1:2. τὸν Ἰησοῦν καὶ τὴν ἀ. εὐαγγελίζεσθαι proclaim Jesus and the res. i.e. his res., and in consequence, the possibility of a general res. Ac 17:18 (but s. 3 below. τὸν Ἰησοῦν καὶ τὴν ἀνάστασιν could also mean ‘the res. of Jesus’, as perh. Nicol Dam.: 90 Fgm. 130, 18 p. 400, 17 Jac. μνήμη τἀνδρὸς καὶ φιλοστοργίας=‘… the love of the man’); cp. vs. 32 and 4:2. Of the raisings from the dead by Elijah and Elisha ἔλαβον γυναῖκες ἐξ ἀ. τοὺς νεκροὺς αὐτῶν women (i.e. the widow of Zarephath and the Shunammite woman 3 Km 17:23; 4 Km 4:36) received their dead by res. Hb 11:35.

ⓑ of the future res. (Theoph. Ant. 1, 13 [p. 86, 25]), linked with Judgment Day: described as ἀ. νεκρῶν (Did., Gen. 96, 13) Mt 22:31; Ac 23:6; 24:15, 21; 26:23; 1 Cor 15:12f; 21; 42; Hb 6:2; D 16:6; or ἀ. ἐκ νεκρῶν Lk 20:35; B 5:6; AcPlCor 2:35 (cp. Ar. 15, 3; Just., D. 45, 2); cp. IPol 7:1; Pol 7:1; MPol 14:2. ἀ. σαρκός (not found in the NT) AcPlCor 1:12; 2:24 (Just., D. 80, 5; σωμάτων Tat. 6, 1; Ath., R. 11 p. 59, 14). Of Jesus: τὴν ἀ. ποιεῖν bring about the res. (of the dead) B 5:7. Jesus’ Passion as our res. ISm 5:3. ἀθάνατος τῆς ἀ. καρπός 2 Cl 19:3. Described as ἀ. κρείττων Hb 11:35 in contrast w. the res. of the past, because the latter was, after all, followed by death. ἡ μέλλουσα ἀ. (Theoph. Ant. 2, 15 [p. 138, 17]) the future res. 1 Cl 24:1. ἡ κατὰ καιρὸν γινομένη ἀ. the res. that comes at regular intervals (i.e. seasons, day and night), as a type of the future res. 24:2.—More details in J, who mentions an ἀ. ἐν τῇ ἐσχάτῃ ἡμέρᾳ on the Last Day J 11:24 and differentiates betw. the ἀ. κρίσεως res. for judgment for the wicked and the ἀ. ζωῆς res. to life for those who do good 5:29. Christ calls himself ἡ ἀ. and ἡ ζωή 11:25, since he mediates both to humans.—Paul seeks to demonstrate the validity of belief in Jesus’ res. in terms of the res. of the dead in general 1 Cor 15:12ff (s. MDahl, The Res. of the Body. A Study of 1 Cor 15, ’62 and s. τάγμα 1b). γνῶναι … τὴν δύναμιν τῆς ἀ. αὐτου Phil 3:10.—Lk 14:14 mentions only a res. of the just, as in some intertestamental belief; likew. B 21:1. Hebraistically υἱοὶ τῆς ἀ. (w. υἱοὶ θεοῦ) children of the res.=sharers in the resurrection Lk 20:36. A second res. is presupposed by the ἀ. ἡ πρώτη of Rv 20:5f. Denial of res. by the Sadducees Mt 22:23, 28, 30f; Mk 12:18, 23; Lk 20:27, 33, 35f (on this see Schürer II 391; 411); by the Epicureans Ac 17:18 (ERohde, Psyche³ 1903 II 331–35; cp. the ins 2 above, beg.); and by Christians 1 Cor 15:12 (prob. in the sense of Just., D. 80, 4 λέγουσι μὴ εἶναι νεκρῶν ἀνάστασιν, ἀλλʼ ἅμα τῷ ἀποθνῄσκειν τὰς ψυχὰς αὐτῶν ἀναλαμβάνεσθαι εἰς τ. οὐρανόν ‘they say there is no resurrection of the dead, but that at the time of death their souls are taken up into heaven’; s. JWilson, ZNW 59, ’68, 90–107); 2 Ti 2:18 (cp. Menander in Iren. 1, 23, 5 [Harv. I 195] resurrectionem enim per id quod est in eum baptisma, accipere eius discipulos, et ultra non posse mori, sed perseverare non senescentes et immortales [Menander teaches that] ‘his followers receive resurrection by being baptized into him, and that they face death no more, but live on without growing old, exempt from death’; cp. Just., A I, 26, 4; Valentinus in Clem. of Alex., Str. 4, 13, 91; Tertull., Carn. Resurr. 25 agnitio sacramenti [=ἡ τοῦ μυστηρίου γνῶσις] resurrectio).—FNötscher, Altoriental. u. atl. Auferstehungsglaube 1926; JLeipoldt, Sterbende u. auferstehende Götter 1923; Cumont³ ’31; ANikolainen, D. Auferstehungsglauben in d. Bibel u. in ihrer Umwelt. I Relgesch. Teil ’44. II NT ’46.—WBousset, Rel.³, 1926, 269–74 al.; Billerb. IV 1928, 1166–98.—AMeyer, D. Auferstehung Christi 1905; KLake, The Historical Evidence of Res. of Jesus Christ 1907; LBrun, D. Auferst. Christi in d. urchr. Überl. 1925; PGardner-Smith, The Narratives of the Resurrection 1926; SMcCasland, The Res. of Jesus ’32; MGoguel, La foi à la résurr. de Jésus dans le Christianisme primitif ’33; EFascher, ZNW 26, 1927, 1–26; EFuchs, ZKG 51, ’32, 1–20; AThomson, Did Jesus Rise from the Dead? ’40; EHirsch, D. Auferstehungsgeschichten u. d. chr. Glaube ’40; PAlthaus, D. Wahrheit des kirchl. Osterglaubens² ’41; WMichaelis, D. Erscheinungen des Auferstandenen ’44; ARamsey, The Res. of Christ ’45; JLeipoldt, Zu den Auferstehungsgeschichten: TLZ 73, ’48, 737–42 (rel.-Hist.); KRengstorf, Die Auferstehung Jesu² ’54; GKoch, Die Auferstehung J. Christi ’59; HGrass, Ostergeschehen u. Osterberichte ’56; ELohse, Die Auferstehung J. Chr. im Zeugnis des Lk ’61; HvCampenhausen, Tradition and Life in the Early Church, ’68, 42–89; WCraig, Assessing the NT Evidence for the Historicity of the Resurrection of Jesus ’89; GLüdemann, Die Auferstehung Jesu ’94. S. also τάφος 1.—KDeissner, Auferstehungshoffnung u. Pneumagedanke b. Pls 1912; GVos, The Pauline Doctrine of the Res.: PTR 27, 1929, 1–35; 193–226; FGuntermann, D. Eschatologie d. hl. Pls ’32; HMolitor, Die Auferstehung d. Christen und Nichtchristen nach d. Ap. Pls ’33; LSimeone, Resurrectionis iustorum doctr. in Ep. S. Pauli ’38; DStanley, Christ’s Resurrection in Pauline Soteriology ’61; CMoule, NTS 12, ’65/66, 106–23; MdeBoer, The Defeat of Death ’88; JHolleman, A Traditio-Historical Study of Paul’s Eschatology in 1 Cor 15 (NovT Suppl. 84), ’96.—RGrant, Miracle and Nat. Law ’52, 221–63. JBuitkamp, Auferstehungsglaube in den Qumrantexten, diss. Groningen ’64; GWild, Auferstehungsglaube des späten Israel, diss. Bonn. ’67; W. Pannenberg, Grundzüge der Christologie⁶ ’82, 74ff.

③ a deity within a polytheistic system, Resurrection Ac 17:18. This interpr., first set forth by Chrysostom (Hom. in Act. 38, 1), has found modern supporters (s. Haenchen ad loc.). The semantic issue arises from the fact that the narrative presents the auditors as theologically ignorant. Their assumption is that Paul seemed to be a proclaimer of ‘new divinities’ (vs. 18a). From their perspective the term ἀ. suggests a divinity named Resurrection (abstractions identified as divinities were not uncommon in the Gr-Rom. world, s. EA 19 ’92, 71–73). But the omniscient author informs the reader that bodily resurrection (as in 2 above) is meant.—DELG s.v. ἵστημι. M-M. TW. Sv.