Drew I’ve been misunderstood, most likely because of my limited English: I’m not seeking for aknowledgements, if you didn’t felt to be rightly addressed or that the material/informations provided in past here on the forum, by PMs or email was not valuable to your researches purposes I can’t see any reason why you should think that today.
The acknowledgment I’m on about was referred to the pictures shot by myself and not to the material coming from the manuals/book, which I’m very happy to share with anyone as usual.
What I meant with the review is that if you’d have told me about your project I’d integrated your research with fuzes missing in your index, addressing you to the manuals, archives and sources where the real juice is held.
From your words I deduce I’ve offended you with my terrible communication timing and because I didn’t sent you the sales book: about the first I’m very sorry but because of my job I travel very often, sometimes for months in countries where I can’t easly maintain steady communications and of course with no access to personal documentation, about the second nobody is allowed to use the material contained in Petrucci’s outstanding job or coming from the Whitehead private archives without the Company/author allowance.
“WASS 133 years of history” is not a publication out for sale beacuse is the now days gift of the Company to customers and the archive material which I’m lucky enough to have thanks to my relations with the Company and engineer Petrucci has been asked to keep private; as I’ve only one word, no matter if in a public or private channel I honor my word. I bet that who sent you a copy of the said sales book didn’t.
Because of the above, I’m the one that apologise to you.
Back on the net cutting device topic, I’ve to rectify what I wrote about the US made head sawed profile posted before, as I’ve found in the archive the attached picture (NH 84493), referred to trials of the said head and clearly showing a pierced (weak) metal made net, not a hemp fibres one.
[edit]
Just quoting your original post, to the which my reply was addressed:
Yes the material you posted was extracted from the above mentioned book - the quality /resolution wasn't acceptable for a later book publication decision, hence the search for a copy of the book and thereby the potential to obtained higher resolution scans of the diagrams; (None of your posted photos were used in the book else I would have included photo acknowledgements to you)
The diagrams alone do not provide a sufficient detail description of how some of the more complex mechanisms function, which was absent from your postings - hours of book translation provided that.
At the time of the postings (May 2014) I did indeed attempted to reach out to you - however I believe due to your work /travelling commitments the communications was slow, infrequent and there were periods of no replies.
In addition, I was also seeking a copy of the Whitehead Sales Ledger in which you had access to but reluctant /unable to provide a full copy. (I now have a full copy in addition to Petrucci's Book (English)) You indeed may have an extensive library on torpedo reference books - I now have access to a number of extensive private libraries on torpedo books.
Finally the decision to publish 3 years of torpedo pistol design research only came about in 2016 prior to the Rijeka Conference.
My apologies if I have excluded you from the book acknowledgements as I did indeed attempted to include all - perhaps the period of radio silence didn't help or me just getting old and senile...........I'll rectify that in the next revised edition.
Re the reasons that pushed you to publish your research: a noble and very helpfull purpose that deserves big credit, informations on such old subsystems are difficult to find and being spread over a large time window never clustered together.