
Woven image from 1839 was an important step in the history of computing (2016) - curtis
http://www.historyofinformation.com/detail.php?entryid=2245
======
branweb
To see a jacquard loom in action, check out this clip from James Burke's
excellent documentary, Connections:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=itd-4lMoXgI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=itd-4lMoXgI)

The clip doesn't show it, but Burke in the documentary makes the same
connection as the article, but in a little more detail. He goes from Jacquard
-> Babbage -> Hollering ( who used punchcards for the 1890 census), who
founded the company which later became IBM.

Really fascinating to watch Burke pull up existing pieces of the modern world
and examine their roots. Most of the time, it reveals that most revolutionary
innovation was just a variation/consolidation of existing technologies.

~~~
jacquesm
Hollerith:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herman_Hollerith](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herman_Hollerith)

Connections used to be one of my favorite columns in Scientific American.

~~~
branweb
ah oops. Thanks for the correction!

------
yetihehe
> The image, including caption and Carquillat’s name, taking credit for the
> weaving, measures 55 x 34 cm

> using 24,000 Jacquard cards, each of which had over 1000 hole positions

So, 24 megapixels, or about 6000x4000px at about 300dpi, that's a nice
resolution, considered magazine photo quality nowadays.

~~~
tdeck
I'd expect given that this is weaving the effective resolution is
significantly lower. Both light and dark threads have to spend some time on
top and bottom to hold the fabric together, if I understand correctly.

The PDF "Basics of Jacquard Design in Photoshop" [1] seems to suggest a 6x6
"pixel".

[1]:
[https://mycourses.aalto.fi/pluginfile.php/153467/mod_folder/...](https://mycourses.aalto.fi/pluginfile.php/153467/mod_folder/content/0/Jacquard%201-%20weft%20system%20in%20English.pdf?forcedownload=1)

------
QuercusMax
This is a much-higher-quality version of the actual woven material in
question: [https://www.metmuseum.org/toah/works-of-
art/31.124/](https://www.metmuseum.org/toah/works-of-art/31.124/)

------
AdmiralAsshat
A bit disappointing that the article, which devotes seven paragraphs to
discussing this image, does not actually display the image in question. Surely
there is a public domain photograph of the image itself that would have been
suitable to embed into the article?

EDIT: My mistake. It appears to be in the top-left corner.

~~~
telesilla
It's on the page, in the left hand column at the top.

[https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Machine-
loomed_silk_...](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Machine-
loomed_silk_portrait_of_Joseph-Marie_Jacquard_Wellcome_L0020370.jpg)

------
gdubs
Weaving continued to play an integral role in computing with the development
of 'rope memory' – the core of the Apollo navigation computer. [1]

1: "Moon Machines: Navigation Computer"
[https://youtu.be/wD97RSpiZe0?t=1336](https://youtu.be/wD97RSpiZe0?t=1336)

------
peter_d_sherman
Here's a detailed visual guide about how the loom worked:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K6NgMNvK52A](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K6NgMNvK52A)

(Sorry, no sound apparently...)

------
telesilla
How can an entire article about Babbage and the Jacquard loom not mention Ada
Lovelace even once?

“…We may say most aptly, that the Analytical Engine weaves algebraical
patterns just as the Jacquard-loom weaves flowers and leaves “ — Ada Lovelace

[https://medium.com/@hellomista/lovelace-and-
babbage-91a76b19...](https://medium.com/@hellomista/lovelace-and-
babbage-91a76b19ff30)

There is a great collection of her writings here:

[http://www.claymath.org/publications/ada-lovelaces-
mathemati...](http://www.claymath.org/publications/ada-lovelaces-mathematical-
papers)

~~~
Zelphyr
I feel like this article is simply intended to demonstrate what the Jacquard
loom produced. Leaving out the contributions of Lovelace is no different from
leaving out the contributions of Turing. Both were monumentally worthy
contributions to programming, but the intent of this article was to focus on
one small but important facet of the overall history.

I myself have read many times over the years about the Jacquard loom but never
actually saw a product of it. That is fascinating for me and doesn't take away
any of my respect for what Ada Lovelace gave us.

~~~
greglindahl
What's the connection between Turing and the Jacquard Loom? I googled, and
there doesn't seem to be any direct connection.

~~~
ggggtez
That's actually exactly the point the parent poster is making. Ada Lovelace
has no direct relation to the Jacquard Loom. She's only related because she
worked with Babbage, and Babbage was mentioned. Both of you are pointing out
that Ada/Turing don't need to be mentioned, as it's not an article about
general computing, but specifically about the Loom.

~~~
greglindahl
I'm actually disagreeing with that point, and was doing it by asking a leading
question. Turing doesn't appear to have even talked about the Jacquard Loom,
while Lovelace did. I consider that to be a direct connection between Lovelace
and the loom.

~~~
Someone
There’s a direct connection between _greglindahl_ and the Jacquard loom, too
((s)he wrote about it), but that’s no reason to mention _greglindahl_ in the
article.

Writers writing about these subjects may ignore non-male protagonists, but for
subjects like these, one can only try to show that statistically.

~~~
cr0sh
> greglindahl

Call me uncouth, but I don't know who "greglindahl" is...?

EDIT: Ok - I have an idea now who "greglindahl" is - but I wasn't able to find
any reference to writings about the Jacquard loom?

But Lovelace was writing about the Jacquard loom in relation to computation;
was greglindahl's writings of the same style - that is, were they in
relationship to computation?

If not, then of course there'd be no reason to mention that writer.

But the fact that Lovelace did write about the context of computation in
relation to the loom, makes the idea that she could have been mentioned
salient.

I'm not arguing that she should have been mentioned, but I can understand how
someone could think that might be a worthy addition to the piece.

~~~
Someone
_”but I can understand how someone could think that might be a worthy addition
to the piece.”_

I can understand that, too, but if, as _telesilla_ did, you write _”How can an
entire article about Babbage and the Jacquard loom not mention Ada Lovelace
even once?”_ , I and, I guess, many others, don’t read that as ‘might be a
worthy addition’.

And I don’t know _greglindahl_ , either, but their comment that I replied to
argued that, a) the article wasn’t about the loom, but about general
computing, and b) because of that, and because Lovelace wrote about the
jacquard loom, she should have been mentioned the moment Babbage got
mentioned. That’s the only place I know where _greglindahl_ writes about the
loom.

