Search Documents

By A. W. Furbank

IN reviewing the aerial cameras produced in different countries, it becomes apparent that in nearly all of them an attempt has been made to secure the greatest possible angle of view. This angle, of course, is determined by the objective. The objectives most commonly in use in aerial cameras have a maximum angle of 65°. The objective developed for this new Zeiss camera combines freedom from distortion and brilliant definition, with an angle of 95°. Aerial mapping, it is claimed, has been placed on a different economic basis, and new possibilities presented, par-ticularly in connection with automatic stereoscopic plotting instruments, to which some short references are made. One way of enlarging the angle of view is to couple several instruments with their axes convergent, thereby producing a multilens camera. Typi-cal of cameras of this sort in the United States is the Bagley four-lens camera, which later was developed into the five-lens camera (T3-A) of the U. S. Air Corps. More recently, in order to get away from the unfavorable Maltese cross image field of the five-lens camera, and to obtain a more practical form, two five-lens cameras were combined. By using them in tandem and rotating them by 45° relatively to each other, a ten-lens camera was produced, covering an octagonal ground area, with a total angle of view of 140°. Similar designs have been evolved in other countries. In all of them, however, a number of difficulties have arisen, quite apart from their large weight and high cost. Because of their complex mechanism, numerous shutters and magazines, and the high precision with which these parts must be interadjusted and synchronized, these cameras are far from dependable. Moreover, a multilens camera by itself does not yet constitute a complete outfit for producing pictures suitable for photogrammetric survey. Because all the component pictures, except the central one, are obliques, it is always necessary to employ rectifying apparatus which transforms the marginal views to the perspective of the central one. In multilens cameras with many individual magazines, it is not convenient to

Jan 1, 1938

By S. L. Hoyt

IN technological studies on steel considerable emphasis has been placed on the identification of the foreign inclusions, testimony of which is adequately given in the metallographic literature covering methods for their identification. The outstanding accomplishment in this field is the scheme devised by Campbell, Comstock and Wohrman for identi-fying various oxides, sulfides, silicates and other constituents by syste-matic etching tests and microscopic examination.1 The time involved in carrying out this procedure has led to attempts to secure quicker methods, or at least to shorten the time required to secure essential information. An example of this is the use of dark field illumination, but when this was tried out by the authors it was found that cavities and pits on the polished surface appeared bright on a dark field and could not be distinguished from small glassy inclusions. Still another means is the Leitz Ultropak, an instrument equipped with optical units for the illumination of the specimen by reflected light to secure an effect similar to dark field illumination. The structures are made visible in exceedingly sharp details by utilizing the inherent properties of the samples, such as refractive index, absorption coefficients and reflection powers. We have had no experience, with the Ultropak, but a recent paper by Benedicks and Löfquist3 describes methods for

Jan 1, 1934

Jan 1, 1943

Jan 1, 1893

Jan 1, 1916

Jan 1, 1890

Jan 1, 1948

Jan 1, 1894

Jan 1, 1944

Jan 1, 1949

Jan 1, 1915

Jan 1, 1939

Jan 1, 1922

Jan 1, 1935

[ ]

Jan 1, 1946

[ ]

Jan 1, 1928

Jan 1, 1936

Jan 1, 1925

Jan 1, 1906

By Robert Glass Cleland

[Incorporated under the laws of the State of New York OFFICE, 41) WALL STREET, NEW YORK 5, N. Y. Authorized4,000,000 shares $150,000,000.00 Outstanding-5,071,260 shares 126,781,500.00]

Jan 1, 1952