A 1985 conference paper about  the Paige machine , available through ERIC.
I also vaguely remember some discussion of it , perhaps in a publication at
Cornell. I will look.

https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED265544

Another citation (I haven't tracked this one down)

Lee, J. Y., Anatomy of a Fascinating Failure. American Heritage of
Invention and Technology, Summer 1987, pp. 55-60.

More about that --

https://circuitousroot.com/artifice/letters/press/noncastcomp/paige/index.html



On Sun, Mar 11, 2018 at 7:50 PM, Carl J. Chimi <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> I'm just reading the section of the recent edition of the Autobiography in
> which Clemens discusses to some extent his perception of how the typesetter
> worked.  His description is valuable, not only because he had considerable
> experience as a compositor, but also to show how he could have been so
> taken
> by the machine as to invest so heavily in it.
>
> I've read descriptions of the machine that range from roughly "hopelessly
> incapable of the task" to "hopelessly complex given the task".  I've seen
> it
> depicted in the 1940s biopic as a truly silly and ridiculous device.  I
> believe I even saw some version of the actual machine in the basement of
> the
> Hartford house the first time I visited back in late 1972.  Nothing like
> the
> Rube Goldberg thing in the movie.  Not being an expert, but being
> mechanically inclined, I remember the machine I saw as "plausible".
>
> All this has me wondering if anyone has ever written a study of the
> technical aspects of the machine.  How it worked.  How it perhaps drew on
> and related to other technology of that period.  That Clemens said such a
> machine would have to "think" is fascinating, and makes me wonder how Paige
> created something that did apparently work and did, apparently, give the
> illusion of "thinking".
>
> I figure if anyone has written on this topic, this is the forum that would
> know about it.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Carl
> Grandfather of Olivia
>