the framework was affected. Consequently, work on 

 the machinery was set back by some months. Eiffel 

 was informed that although everything was guaranteed 

 to be in full operation by opening day on May 1 , the 

 contractual deadline of January 1 could not possibly 

 be met. Eiffel, now unquestionably acting on his own 

 volition, responded by cable, refusing all payment. 

 Charles Otis' reply, a classic of indignation, disclosed 

 to Eiffel the jeopardy in which his impetuosity had 

 placed the success of the entire project: 



After all else we have borne and suffered and achieved in 

 your behalf, we regard this as a trifle too much; and we do 

 not hesitate to declare, in the strongest terms possible to 

 the English language, that we will not put up with it . . . 

 and, if there is to be War, under the existing circumstances, 

 propose that at least part of it shall be fought on American 

 ground. If Mr. Eiffel shall, on the contrary, treat us as we 

 believe we are entitled to be treated, under the circum- 

 stances, and his confidence in our integrity to serve him well 

 shall be restored in season to admit of the completion of this 

 work at the time wanted, well and good; but it must be 

 done at once . . . otherwise we shall ship no more work 

 from this side, and Mr. Eiffel must charge to himself the 

 consequences of his own acts. 



This message apparently had the desired effect and the 

 matter was somehow resolved, as the machinery was 

 in full operation when the Exposition opened. The 

 installation must have had iminense promotional 

 value for Otis Brothers, particularly in its contrast to 

 the somewhat anomalous French system. This con- 

 trast evidently was visible to the technically un- 

 sophisticated as well as to visiting engineers. Several 

 newspapers reported that the Otis elevators were one 

 of the best American exhibits at the fair. 



In spite of their large over-all scale and the com- 

 plication of the basic pattern imposed by the unique 

 situation, the Otis elevators performed well and 

 justified the original judgment and confidence which 

 had prompted Eiffel to fight for their installation. 

 Aside from the obvious advantage of simplicity when 

 compared to the French machines, their operation 

 was relatively quiet, and fast. 



The double car, traveling at 400 feet per minute, 

 carried 40 persons, all seated because of the change of 

 inclination. The main valve or distributor that 

 controlled the flow of water to and from the driving 

 cylinder was operated from the car by cables. The 

 hydraulic head necessary to produce pressure within 

 the cylinder was obtained from a large open reservoir 

 on the second platform. After being exhausted from 

 the cylinder, the water was pumped back up by two 



Girard pumps (fig. 31) in the engine room at the base 

 of the Tower's south leg. 



THE SYSTEM OF ROUX, COMBALUZIER AND 

 LEPAPE 



There can be little doubt that the French elevators 

 placed in the east and west piers to carry visitors to 

 the first stage of the Tower had the important second- 

 ary function of saving face. That an engineer of 

 Eiffel's mechanical perception would have permitted 

 their use, unless compelled to do so by the Exposition 

 Commission, is unthinkable. Whatever the attitudes 

 of the commissioners may have been, it must be said — 

 recalling the Backmann system — that they did not 

 fear innovation. The machinery installed by the 

 firm of Roux, Combaluzier and Lepape was novel 

 in every respect, but it was a product of misguided 

 ingenuity and set no precedent. The system, never 

 duplicated, was conceived, born, lived a brief and not 

 overly creditable life, and died, entirely within the 

 Tower. 



Basis of the French system was an endless chain of 

 short, rigid, articulated links (fig. 35), to one point of 

 which the car was attached. As the chain moved, the 

 car was raised or lowered. Recalling the European 

 distrust of suspended elevators, it is interesting to note 

 that the car was pushed up by the links below, not 

 drawn by those above, thus the active links were in 

 compression. To prevent buckling of the column, the 

 chain was enclosed in a conduit (fig. 36). Excessive 

 friction was prevented by a pair of small rollers at each 

 of the knuckle joints between the links. The system 

 was, in fact, a duplicate one, with a chain on either 

 side of the car. At the bottom of the run the chains 

 passed around huge sprocket wheels, 12.80 feet in 

 diameter, with pockets on their peripheries to engage 

 the joints. Smaller wheels at the top guided the 

 chains. 



If by some motive force the wheel (fig. 33) were 

 turned counterclockwise, the lower half of the chain 

 would be driven upward, carrying the car with it. 

 Slots on the inside faces of the lower guide trunks 

 permitted passage of the connection between the car 

 and chain. Lead weights on certain links of the 

 chains' upper or return sections counterbalanced 

 most of the car's dead weight. 



Two horizontal cylinders rotated the driving 

 sprockets through a mechanism whose effect was 

 similar to the rope-gearing of the standard hydraulic 

 elevator, but which might be described as chain 



28 



BULLETIN 228: CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY 



