Big money, bad science

The title is gruesomely and torturously true of Big Science itself. No explanation needed.

Oddly, the correlation also applies to radio and TV shows about science.

Among discussion-type shows, the elite academic “roundtable” shows and elite quiz shows like Information Please generally spewed old worn-out cliches that had been disproved for many decades. The UFO discussers, distinctly non-elite, got the details of astronomy and physics exactly right. Their speculations may have been right or wrong, but they started from a correct baseline.

Among sci-fi adventure serials, the low-budget radio shows of the ’30s were careful to state all the known facts correctly, and their fantasies were plausible. The same is true of Space Patrol, the long-running cereal/serial in the ’50s. The sets and effects were super-cheap, crude wooden models and badly painted stage flats. The intro shows a rocket launching amid a cloud of smoke, which is obviously coming from a cigarette in an ashtray.

By contrast the higher-budget Rocket Man movie series, rebranded three or four ways, used real locations and real cars and real equipment, with well-done flying effects; but the basic science was wildly wrong and stupid.

Whimsical correction

Vintage.es has pix of people listening to radios. Most are German, but this one is delightfully American, and reminds me that the Zenith Transoceanic was originally meant to be a portable for boating.

So the Zenith needs to be added to this whimsical item, especially since the Transoceanic has a specific Okie connection for me.

Reprinting with the addition:

= = = = =

EnidBuzz asked for misheard lyrics. One commenter said that her school always sang the state song, and she had her own version and her own image of the song.

Original words:

Oklahoma, where the wind comes whistling down the plain
And the waving wheat can sure smell sweet
When the wind comes right behind the rain.
Oklahoma, every night my honeylamb and I
Sit alone and talk and watch a hawk
Making lazy circles in the sky.

Her image:

Oklahoma, where the wind comes whistling down the plain
And the waving wheat can sure smell sweet
When the wind comes right behind the rain.
Oklahoma, every night my honey, lamb, and I
Sail along and talk and watch a hawk
Making lazy circles in the sky.

Makes far more sense because sailing brings the wind into the scene as a character. Okie wind is always there. A typical day is 20g30, and 30g40 is nothing special.

Polistra and Happystar are inspired. (Sputnik subs for the hawk.)

= = = = =

Footnote: Here’s the story of how the state belatedly replaced its HORRIBLE original song with the WONDERFUL Rogers and Hammerstein number.

Hard answer to soft question 3

Third in a stupid series.

EnidBuzz asked: What do you like to do the old-fashioned way?

Most common answer: Everything.

Hard answer (lit and fig): Your mom.

= = = = =

FWIW, I’m pretty damn old-fashioned, but I’m newfangled in one way. Many of the commenters mentioned drying clothes on the line. Nope, I’ll take the dryer. Cloth and me don’t get along, so I spend an absolute minimum of time and effort on crap made of cloth.

More BIG

Wesley Smith hits hard on two BIG corrections in BIG medical topics. Two longstanding orthodoxies have been PROVED wrong.

1. Depression is caused by biochemistry.  Wrong but probably not fraudulent.

2. Alzheimers is caused by plaque.  Wrong and deliberate fraud.

THIS IS BIG.

I already know 1 is wrong, because I’ve figured out non-chemical ways to fight depression and anxiety. If it was purely a matter of chemistry, physical and cognitive rearrangements wouldn’t make any difference. I have no experiential way (yet!!!) of checking 2, but it was clearly not yielding any results after 20 years and billions of dollars.

Why were these particular errors so easy to fund and so hard to find?   A problem caused by chemistry can be solved by pharmaceuticals.

From Smith’s article:

= = = = =

The 2006 report concluded that Alzheimer’s is caused by a buildup of a certain type of plaque in the brain—a finding that has guided research into cures for Alzheimer’s ever since. But now, critics claim that the original authors “appeared to have composed figures by piecing together parts of photos from different experiments” calling their conclusions into significant question.

If true, this is a scientific scandal of the worst order. As the Science article notes, the questionable study strongly influenced the funding of research into treatments, with the National Institutes of Health (NIH) spending $1.6 billion pursuing the plaque hypothesis this fiscal year. Even worse, if scientific mistakes in the study were not caught during peer review because of data manipulation, it deprived Alzheimer’s researchers investigating other hypotheses of badly needed funding, perhaps delaying the development of effective treatments.

= = = = =

The lost opportunity is crucial, and not usually mentioned in this context. Science funding since 1946 has followed the Superstar model. The biggest and most influential lab gets all the funding, and then has no particular reason to accomplish anything.  And no reason to question the theory that brought in the bucks.

What’s the cure? Radical demonectomy. Eliminate all federal funding and agencies for “science”. Delete the whole satanic monstrosity. Eliminate tenure and peer review. Revert science to a hobby conducted by rich or crowdfunded amateurs.

THEORY KILLS. EXPERIENCE SURVIVES.

Shkreli has a GOOD idea.

Shkreli has finished his 5 years in prison, and DailyMail has an informative interview.

Is he reformed? Hell no. I understand the Shkreli type, and I understand prison, and I predicted correctly that he would be an outstanding mentor to other Bad dudes.

From the DailyMail:

At the top of his post-prison to-do list is getting back into his former industry and taking aim at the FTC, with Shkreli stating: ‘My main focus is just fighting the government and getting back the right to be in pharma.’

To that end, he is appealing an FTC ruling that banned him from the industry, while also landing him with a $65 million fine. And while he is confident that he will come out on top, Shkreli is already working on a new venture that he says will provide him with the opportunity to get his ‘revenge’ on Big Pharma once and for all: a new drug-discovery software company, Druglike.

Through the Robin Hood-style start-up, Shkreli wants to make early drug discovery more accessible by putting the same software used by multi-billion-dollar pharma companies on the cloud and crowdsourcing it so that it can be used by the masses.

Does he mean it? Probably not. Most likely it’s just another sneaky way for Shkreli to make money. But if he means it, the idea has tremendous potential. Pharma desperately needs to be snatched away from the Nazi torture industry. If ordinary people could build or buy useful pharmaceuticals quietly and privately without passing through the extortion and torture gates of the MDs (Mengele Demons) we might have some real goddamn health for fucking once.

We could use some expert BAD dudes who know how to sneak around the system.

Look at this picture of Evans Drugs in Enid, circa 1897. (Crank up the contrast on the image.) Or these pictures of a similarly equipped drugstore in Seattle.

The pharmaceuticals were carefully organized and OPENLY AVAILABLE. Rows and rows of Mason jars and drawers containing herbs and chemicals. Nobody was stealing the chemicals because everyone could BUY THEM LEGALLY.

PAY FOR VALUE is the solution to most modern problems.

The old books on Science as DIY entertainment assumed that the reader had access to a drugstore like this. Most of the ingredients listed in those books are totally unavailable today, classified as Schedule 534853489578594 Narcotics or Schedule 6789463753 Terrorism Tools.

= = = = =

Also: Mark Cuban has started a more practical and immediate answer. He’s only dealing with the cost end of the problem. Supposedly Cuban’s retail pharmacy will avoid insurers entirely, and avoid those mysterious but wildly expensive Pharmacy Benefit Managers. The PBMs, inserted into the system by Obamacare, serve no function except adding cost.

= = = = =

Two weeks later: Shockedshockedshocked! Shkreli was just pulling a quick pump and dump. As usual he had no intention of actually running a company. It would still be a good idea, but there’s no point in discussing or thinking about good ideas. Good ideas are permanently obsolete and impossible.

The opposite of self-liquidating

Lately I’ve been somewhat fascinated by the use of interactive quizzes and ‘self-liquidating premiums’ in radio and other advertising. Smart marketers were able to gain permanent conversion to a product by offering small tokens or premiums, which were fully paid by the customer.

NFTs are so horrible that they can’t serve as a self-liquidating premium!

GM made a unique offer last month. If you bought an NFT representing a specially made Corvette, you not only got the NFT, you got the REAL PHYSICAL Corvette. Admittedly the price wasn’t a dime or a quarter like the old self-liquidating boxtop premiums; it was about $200k.

The price probably seemed like a good bet, given that pipe-smoking monkeys without any physical accompaniment were selling in that range, and the price of a fully loaded new Vette without an NFT is in the $110k range. A uniquely equipped and certified one-off supercar gains value quickly, and likely could be sold for more than $200k.

Nobody bought it. NFTs are so awful that even a real Corvette can’t persuade people to buy them.

Special bonus: GM was treating the auction as a benefit for DonorsChoose, a charity that I supported enthusiastically and expensively until 2020 when they officially required rioting and cop-killing.

DonorsLose!

Entertainment spawns entertainment

From Gerard and Castor’s record of bitcoin idiocy:

But Zhu and Davies have been telling the public — especially their creditors — how they lost money too, how they fear for their lives, and how they are so overwhelmed that they can’t turn over banking information just yet, but they’ll get to that soon, for sure. The two old school buddies say they were shocked by how quickly things unraveled. “What we failed to realize was that luna was capable of falling to effective zero in a matter of days.”

Failed to realize??? When you have access to the code, you know what can fall to zero and what can’t fall to zero. Here’s a live example in my own ‘work’ right now.

I’ve been gradually improving the Python code for the Clavecin Oculaire, trying to make the keyboard move again. It did move at some point, but hasn’t been moving in the clips I’ve made. Right next to the keyboard action is the line that controls the ‘candles’ for the Kruger.

In KeyDown:

    
for f in range(frameL,frameR):
    scene.SetFrame(f)
    #KeyParm.SetValue(DNVAL) # set key DOWN
    # Make the appropriate GATE open
    GateParm.SetValue(-0.04) # open
    LampValue = LampParm.Value()
    if LampValue < 1.0: LampParm.SetValue(LampValue + 0.25)
# end frame subloop

In KeyUp:

for f in range(frameL,frameR):
    scene.SetFrame(f)
    #KeyParm.SetValue(UPVAL)   # for keyboard within the case
    # Make the appropriate GATE close
    GateParm.SetValue(0.0)
    LampValue = LampParm.Value()
    if LampValue > 0.0: LampParm.SetValue(LampValue - 0.25)    
# end frame subloop

I wanted to snort at the Luna dudes by highlighting the last line in KeyUp. I’m decrementing the Lamp intensity, so I know exactly when it can go to zero.  It’s not an Unanticipated Consequence or an Unforeseen Emergency, it’s part of my plan.  I wrote the code so I know what it will do.

As I was getting ready to paste this section and mock the idiots, I noticed the KeyParm lines. The keyboard wasn’t moving because I had remmed out the lines that move the fucking keyboard.

This is a beautiful example of Nature’s purpose for laughter and derision. Watching idiots fail forces us to examine and fix our own idiocies.

= = = = = START REPRINT:

If science is just entertainment, it loses its court-enforced (and usually fake) connection to truth, and thus loses its power to create genocide. Nobody would use a Vaudeville routine or a cartoon or a song as the foundation for government policies. Science should fit in the same category.

Some science is still funded by ticket holders who expect to be educated as part of the entertainment. Farm associations sponsoring research on wheat are similar to museum or orchestra ticket holders.

Entertainment applies for sure to all the ‘intelligent’ critters from octopuses to mammals. When we’re not in immediate survival mode, we love to watch stuff happening. Entertainment merges smoothly into education. Watching somebody else catch a caterpillar or hammer a nail isn’t especially interesting; but when the catch misses or the hammer hits a thumb, it becomes entertainment AND education. Smart design, connecting pleasure to learning.

Failure and frustration are EXACTLY the moments when learning can happen. Experiential education, when done properly, creates intentional moments of frustration as doors for learning. Watching entertainment is waiting for failure. When we see a racecar crashing or an outfielder missing the catch or an actor jumbling up a word, we laugh cruelly and start thinking about how the process SHOULD have been done. Learning starts with the rhythm of harsh laughter.

Like this.

Science as conventionally performed ELIMINATES these moments of failure. Experiments that fail to support the grantor’s delusional theory are discarded. Methods and data are dishonestly shaped and manipulated to reinforce orthodoxy and agreement, thus completely evading every opportunity for harsh laughter/learning.

= = = = = END REPRINT.

THEY KNOW IT’S A HOAX BECAUSE THEY PROGRAMMED THE HOAX.

And now the improved version with the keyboard moving.

Telemann piece in preview mode:

Telemann in preview mode
Telemann in render mode
Sousa in preview mode
Sousa in render mode

Getting into the act

I’ve been reading Ruth Moore’s wonderful book about fossils and fossil-gatherers. Today the weather decided to participate in my reading.

Weathermen like to talk about historic storms… here’s a prehistoric storm. Despite the scary appearance, it didn’t DO much. No actual rain or lightning, just a nice cool breeze.

Legacies

EnidBuzz posted a ‘memory’ picture of two ladies dressed up in silly style, riding banana bikes to work. Both worked at Sears, and they were doing the annual Crazy Day in 1968.

Commenters had positive memories of the ladies and Sears. This one wins:

I worked at Sears back in 1976 and knew Lucille, she was a hoot.

Think of this in terms of legacies. Hoot is unquestionably a positive legacy.

Try some other legacies:

I worked at Sears back in 1976 and knew Marie, she always told the truth.

I worked at Sears back in 1976 and knew Darlene, she always obeyed the boss.

I worked at Sears back in 1976 and knew Pearl, she rigorously enforced all OSHA and Diversity regulations.

Those legacies are absurd and impossible.

Hoot beats Troot.

Just before the terror

Looking into the Clavecin Oculaire led to a broader view of French science just before the terrorist revolution turned “science” into the horrible unstoppable god of torture and war.

The clavecin was a PLAYFUL USE OF TECHNOLOGY AND SCIENCE. The musicians and scientists who tried it out were HAVING FUN. Several other scientists and writers tried to imagine or build similar devices. The one I animated was by Johann Kruger. Another variation, more toylike, was built by Gilles Guyot around 1773.

Seems to be an optical equivalent of a music box. It could have been paralleled with an actual music box.

There are many volumes of ‘recreations’ by Guyot in Googlebooks. Each includes a dozen specific games or devices, using electricity or water or fire or light or language (as in cryptography). Guyot’s workshop was building and selling most of the devices, and each book has a price list at the end. He also gave full instructions for building the devices, if the reader was so equipped.

Some of the electrical recreations:

Note especially the Sportsman. This device was built later by James Ferguson in England, and by Pike in NYC.

Reprinting my section on Ferguson:

= = = = =

I’m going to slide into this sideways, starting from the junction point of entertainment and science exemplified by the Magic Lantern. Reminder: The magic lantern was an animated video system. Its slide-projector descendants were rigid.

James Ferguson was a highly unusual character in the aristocratic world of British science. His family was poor but smart. He was born in 1710 and immediately showed talent in mechanics, improving and inventing devices for the family farm. He was apprenticed out to a variety of farmers, millers, and aristocrats. Some mistreated him, others recognized his talents in math and astronomy and gave him room to develop. At age 30 he finally found his niche, the unique occupation that mixed math and mechanics and astronomy.

Orreries. Planet simulators. We’ll return to those in the next part. First some entertainment.

Ferguson joined the fashion for electrical entertainment, building and demonstrating gadgets that used electrostatic fields to form complex animation.

Polistra likes this one:

A static-powered mill.

The negative emitter of the static generator is brought near a delicate mill made of paper. The ‘electrical spray’ repels the paper vanes, causing the mill to rotate. As each vane rotates, it loses the charge it had acquired from the spray, returning to neutral. A neat parallel to the potential energy of gravity in an overshot water mill.

= = = = =

The Electrical Sportsman is a more complex gimmick, perhaps not made by Ferguson.

The emitter from the static generator is connected to the center pole of the Leyden jar under the birds. As charge builds up, the birds tied to the pole repel each other, and float out and up on their wires. When the voltage is high enough to discharge to the gun, a spark shows at the end of the gun, and the bullet is repelled toward the birds. The center pole discharges, letting the birds fall back down as if shot.

ENTERTAINMENT IS THE OPPOSITE OF SECRETS.

ENTERTAINMENT IS THE OPPOSITE OF GENOCIDE.

LAUGHTER IS THE OPPOSITE OF DEATH.

= = = = =

Footnote: I’ve already discussed what happened to French science AFTER the terror was over. French science and tech returned to the pre-terror entertainment mode with a vengeance. Science and invention became intensely practical, empathetic, and playful.

Sharing is meaningless

At least Evolution News isn’t playing the fake surprise game. They acknowledge that the habits of academia are permanent.

Scientific progress is being impeded by a culture in which scientists jealously guard their research instead of sharing it. Keas says the problem seems to have gotten worse in recent years but isn’t a new one. He illustrates with the story of Tycho Brahe and Johannes Kepler.

Brahe, a 16th-century Danish astronomer, sat on his astronomical research for years, rather than sharing it with Johannes Kepler, his assistant. Kepler only got hold of it when Brahe died unexpectedly shortly after a banquet. The rumor began that perhaps Brahe had been poisoned to free up access to his research, data that eventually allowed Kepler to make his revolutionary breakthrough, his three laws of planetary motion that cinched the case for a sun-centered model of the universe.

First, Kepler was Brahe’s assistant. He lived in the observatory while Brahe lived in the neighboring castle. He could have made his own observations, and he was probably in charge of writing and organizing the data.

Second, raw vs processed. When you rely on someone else’s data, even allegedly raw measurements, you’re taking in the original observer’s biases and selections with no way of undoing them. Nobody can observe everything in the universe. Every living thing has a purpose in life, and selects the part of reality that suits its purposes.

Third and most important, active vs passive. Data about nature itself can be gathered by anyone with the appropriate tools and skills. If you want to MAKE science, you need to MAKE the observations yourself. Using your own muscles and senses is THE MOST IMPORTANT PART of scientific activity.

The best way to open up science is to open up the ACTIVITY, not the data. Ruth Moore tells the story of Robert Broom, who worked in South Africa in the 1930s. Broom heard that a nearby quarry was turning up interesting fossils. Instead of trying to lockdown the quarry and bring in his own team, as we would do now, he got to know the manager and the workers, stirred their interest in the enterprise, showed them what to look for and how to handle it, and PAID them when they found something interesting. He created scientists while he was creating knowledge.

= = = = =

Sharing information is unnecessary, often unwise, and essentially pointless. Science doesn’t advance by moving preselected information from one place to another. Science doesn’t READ what previous scientists WROTE. Science only advances when NEW people decide to LOOK at nature from a NEW angle with NEW biases.

CARVER:

LOOK ABOUT YOU.
TAKE HOLD OF THE THINGS THAT ARE HERE.
TALK TO THEM.
LET THEM TALK TO YOU.

Sharing a unique physical object can also be unwise. DuBois found Java Man and then got tired of endless NASTY theoretical disputations. Nothing has changed since Ockham tried to control this bad habit. DuBois said Fuck This Shit, locked the bones in a safe, and refused to let the Scholastics use them for further insults and trolling. Finally the museums promised to be nice, and gently persuaded DuBois to open the safe.

Even without trolling and trouble, physical specimens USUALLY sit unnoticed for decades, unmaintained and uncatalogued. Occasionally a bit of data or a bone is picked up, properly credited, and used as the foundation for future learning. This ideal situation generally happens within one lab or company, not between competitors.

Clavecin oculaire

I haven’t been “inspired” to do a tech history piece for a while. This instrument came in through one of those offerings from Academia.edu. I’m surprised that I’d never encountered it before; it stands at the intersection of everything I’ve been doing for the last 20 years.

Louis Bertrand Castel invented the color harpsichord or clavecin oculaire around 1740. Below is an imagined drawing, which doesn’t really agree with the descriptions:

What’s with the water?  Or is that a curved light ray?  Or fireworks?

= = = = =

All the Big Dudes of science and music came to see it and play it. Goethe played it and wrote about it. Charles Avison played it and wrote about it. Telemann wrote about it and then composed a few short pieces to demonstrate it. Diderot brought in a deaf man to write about it. The deaf man understood in an intellectual way that “music” was the result of organs and trumpets and such, but had no concept of what “music” really was. He enjoyed the light show, then wrote that it was a promising way to communicate words.

There aren’t any accurate pictures of Castel’s machine, so I decided to “build” an alternate version by Johann Gottlob Kruger. Writing in Miscellanea Berolinensia in 1743, Kruger described and diagrammed his idea.

Here’s my rendition, with Polistra playing and Happystar enjoying:

Top view shows the circle of candles with colored reflectors. Each key pulled down a gate in front of the appropriate chromatic (lit and fig) candle. The reflector focused this candle’s color through a prism toward the display screen, inverted in retinal style. Poser doesn’t do prisms, so I simply showed the result on a display screen with lightable stripes.

Castel gave verbal descriptions of the colors for each diatonic note, but again there are no color pictures or paintings of the actual colors. I tried to adopt the same Castel Pastel flavor as the above imagined drawing.

The specific Telemann pieces are lost, or at least not available in MIDI suitable for my programs. I used a short Telemann dance instead.

Kruger instrument playing Telemann

And finally here’s good old Sousa, which does a better job of demonstrating. I think Castel’s color choices may have been uniquely appropriate. Which patterns dominate here?

Kruger instrument playing Sousa

Neighborhood puzzle

A week ago I heard an odd noise around 5AM. Sounded sort of like a skateboard but not quite. I peeked out the window. It was a young man pulling an office chair down the street. I could see a piece of paper on the chair.

AHA! I’ve done the same thing a few times. After a garage sale, there’s always some unsold furniture tagged as FREE. I’ve carried a computer or pulled a chair from such leftovers.

BUT! Every day since then, the same young man has pulled the same chair in the same direction at the same time. He’s not leaning on it, not using it for a walking aid. He’s just  pulling it.

I guess it beats walking.

TODAY IS CAPS LOCK DAY!

CAPS LOCK DAY! OH BOY! MY FAVORITE! APPARENTLY CAPS LOCK DAY WAS INTENDED TO HONOR BILLY MAYS, THE KING OF INFOMERCIALS, WHO ALWAYS TALKED IN THE AUDIO EQUIVALENT OF CAPS LOCK.

6/28 IS ALSO TAU DAY, FOR A MORE OBVIOUS REASON. TAU IS A WORTHY REFORM THAT STANDS NO CHANCE OF ADOPTION. ALL PRACTICAL USES OF PI ARE ACTUALLY TWOPI, SO IT MAKES SENSE TO HAVE A SINGLE LETTER FOR THE REAL USE. UNFORTUNATELY MATH IS RULED BY THEORETICIANS, AND IN THEIR VIRTUAL WORLD ONEPI IS MORE IMPORTANT.

TO OBSERVE CAPS LOCK DAY, I’LL REPRINT MY TRIBUTE TO THE ORIGINAL SHOLES TYPEWRITER. EARLY TYPEWRITERS WERE ALL CAPS WITH NO CHOICE. THE UC/LC CHOICE CAME LATER, SO IN A HISTORICAL SENSE CAPS LOCK IS THE STANDARD, NOT THE OPTION.

AND EVEN FARTHER BACK, LOWER CASE WAS AN ACCIDENTAL OUTGROWTH OF THE NEED FOR SPEED AMONG MEDIEVAL SCRIBES. THEY BEGAN WITH CAREFULLY CARVED UC, AND GRADUALLY SMOOTHED IT OUT INTO SMALLER AND ROUNDER CURSIVE, LEAVING ONLY THE FIRST LETTER ON A PAGE (THE HEAD OR CAPITAL) IN CARVED AND EMBELLISHED FORM.

= = = = =

In the story of the Astonishing Hammond I mentioned that the Sholes-Glidden typewriter was already in production in 1880, and as with most tech stories, the dominant product was not the best product.

This is crude and impractical, and could never have worked.

The personalities are perpetually familiar. Sholes was the unworldly idea man. Glidden was the practical engineer. Densmore was the dynamic salesman.

Densmore managed to sell this crude thing to Remington, which was chiefly making sewing machines at the time. Remington basically reinvented it as a sewing machine.

Here’s the original:

This was meant as ‘proof of concept’, but it didn’t even qualify there. It had 21 keys, weights and strings hanging all over, and the keys couldn’t have made a good impression.

The carriage was just a frame, pulled along by a dangling weight. This scanned the paper across the typehead for each line, sort of like the early Xerox machines.

The paper was advanced line by line with a separate frame riding on top of the carriage frame. In this animation I’ve made the paper transparent so you can see how the hammers were arranged.

A tight little circle under the paper held 21 hammers radially. Each short hammer pivoted at its own angle, coming around and hitting the paper from below, pushing it up against the ribbon onto a backstop. The letters would have appeared on top of the paper. The short hammers couldn’t have developed any momentum, so they were inevitably weak; and the type itself was hitting the back of the paper instead of the front.

How did the keys move the hammers? Supposedly through stiff wires, but I can’t see how that would have worked, so I didn’t even try to show it! The key and the hammer are moving by magic.

Sholes and Glidden were not taking advantage of existing knowledge and devices. Hammond took the typewheel and hammer from the Brett printing telegraph, and Hammond used the principles of physics correctly and elegantly.

Continued here with the first Remington.

= = = = = END REPRINT.

THE SHOLES ARRANGED THE KEYS IN A FULL CIRCLE (TWOPI) AND THE HAMMOND WAS A HALF CIRCLE (ONEPI) SO NOW WE’VE COME FULL/HALF CIRCLE BACK TO PI AND TAU.