Yahoo Groups archive

QTR-Quadtone RIP

Index last updated: 2026-04-28 23:12 UTC

Thread

Help calculating ideal Lab L values

Help calculating ideal Lab L values

2013-06-19 by Vincent Wan

Dear All,

How do I figure out the ideal 256 lab values between black and white (where the paper white is density .03, L 97.63 and DMax is density 1.71 and 14.66)? 

I want to know this because Using an Epson 1430 and Eboni 100% and a black only profile on Epson Hot Press Natural I get do not get a perfectly linear lab curve after linearization no matter what I try. The irregularities in the curves are apparent both by measurement and visually with Graham Preston's circular targets. 

Paul Roark's BO curve in his Eboni1400 curve set have the same problems so I figure that its not just me.

I'd figure that I could try and edit the .quad values directly and get a better curve if I knew what the ideal densities were.

As a first step, I have printed a 256 gray target. It takes 2 pages for easy reading with a Spyder3Print spectro and wide margins). Since the Spyder3Print spectra is noisy, I sampled each patch 10 times from two separate printings of the target. The table below gives average of the 5,120 measurements and the quad ink values.

Following the groups advice, I am using QTR print.

Has anyone else fount the Spyder3Print spectra to be noisy? I find that the density values are most consistent, followed by Lab L, and Lab a and b are equally nosiest. I think that (at least for Lab L) that the very dark values are noiser than others.

I've been using 10 samples for each patch and two printings as a practical limit. From series of several hundred measurements of the calibration target and paper white I know that more samples would be better. But I just don't have the patience. I intend to chick the final results with 10 samples from three or four printings of the target.

Any advice would be welcome. 

Thank you,

Vincent

Profile:
PRINTER=Quad1400-Eb
CURVE_NAME=1430-eHPn-Eb_K100

GRAPH_CURVE=YES

N_OF_INKS=6
DEFAULT_INK_LIMIT=35
LIMIT_K=
BOOST_K=41
LIMIT_C=
LIMIT_M=
LIMIT_Y=
LIMIT_LC=
LIMIT_LM=

N_OF_GRAY_PARTS=1
GRAY_INK_1=K
GRAY_VAL_1=100

GRAY_HIGHLIGHT=10
GRAY_SHADOW=10
GRAY_OVERLAP=0
GRAY_GAMMA=1
GRAY_CURVE=

N_OF_TONER_PARTS=0
TONER_HIGHLIGHT=10
TONER_SHADOW=10
TONER_GAMMA=1
TONER_CURVE=
N_OF_TONER_2_PARTS=0
TONER_2_HIGHLIGHT=10
TONER_2_SHADOW=10
TONER_2_GAMMA=1
TONER_2_CURVE=

N_OF_UNUSED=5
UNUSED_INK_1=C
UNUSED_INK_2=M
UNUSED_INK_3=Y
UNUSED_INK_4=LC
UNUSED_INK_5=LM

LINEARIZE="0.03 0.05 0.08 0.12 0.17 0.22 0.27 0.33 0.40 0.46 0.53 0.60 0.66 0.73 0.79 0.86 0.93 1.00 1.06 1.12 1.16 1.21 1.27 1.32 1.39 1.44 1.49 1.54 1.58 1.63 1.69 1.72 1.73"


Measured data:

quad value,100 - Lab l
0,2.13
14,2.53
27,2.85
42,3.25
57,3.65
71,4.04
85,4.45
98,4.78
111,5.14
123,5.54
135,5.94
147,6.19
158,6.52
170,6.86
181,7.14
193,7.53
204,7.77
216,8.19
228,8.59
239,8.82
251,9.11
262,9.43
274,9.72
285,10.09
296,10.41
308,10.75
319,11.01
330,11.29
341,11.64
352,11.87
364,12.34
374,12.57
386,12.71
397,13.10
408,13.51
420,13.74
432,14.09
444,14.42
457,14.77
469,14.96
483,15.47
496,15.35
509,15.94
523,16.31
537,16.82
551,17.16
566,17.58
581,17.94
596,18.14
611,18.69
627,19.20
643,19.57
659,19.95
675,20.28
692,20.44
708,21.01
724,21.25
741,21.66
757,22.17
774,22.54
790,23.28
807,23.51
822,23.83
839,24.07
855,24.49
871,24.90
886,25.29
902,25.69
918,26.03
933,26.19
948,26.39
963,26.54
978,27.02
993,27.38
1008,27.62
1023,28.12
1037,28.42
1052,29.02
1067,29.27
1082,29.58
1097,29.68
1113,30.17
1129,30.73
1145,30.70
1162,30.76
1180,31.10
1198,31.71
1216,31.90
1236,32.13
1256,32.32
1277,32.90
1298,33.10
1319,34.01
1341,34.34
1363,34.97
1385,35.12
1408,35.32
1430,35.88
1452,36.26
1474,36.68
1496,36.73
1517,37.02
1539,37.15
1560,37.66
1581,38.07
1602,37.97
1623,38.71
1644,38.45
1665,39.46
1686,39.75
1707,39.86
1729,40.27
1750,40.54
1772,41.12
1794,41.29
1815,41.60
1838,41.81
1862,41.85
1886,42.20
1910,42.54
1936,42.91
1962,43.19
1989,43.41
2017,43.84
2046,44.62
2076,45.07
2108,45.36
2140,45.66
2173,44.86
2206,45.89
2240,45.93
2274,46.01
2307,46.05
2340,47.01
2373,46.86
2404,47.36
2435,47.27
2466,47.00
2496,46.92
2526,47.52
2557,49.77
2588,49.89
2619,50.04
2652,50.27
2686,50.56
2722,51.42
2760,51.70
2799,51.64
2840,51.46
2883,52.49
2927,52.43
2971,52.86
3015,52.53
3060,52.49
3104,52.47
3147,53.09
3190,55.24
3232,55.82
3273,55.96
3314,56.11
3355,55.97
3396,56.96
3436,57.28
3478,57.22
3520,57.08
3563,57.73
3607,57.96
3652,58.09
3699,57.87
3746,57.16
3793,57.63
3842,57.93
3890,60.00
3939,60.51
3988,60.68
4037,60.87
4086,60.71
4136,61.21
4186,61.75
4238,61.79
4291,61.85
4346,62.36
4404,62.55
4465,62.66
4530,62.77
4597,62.16
4668,62.45
4740,62.89
4814,64.32
4888,64.90
4961,65.12
5033,65.29
5102,64.97
5171,65.54
5241,65.84
5315,66.10
5395,66.43
5486,66.85
5589,67.10
5707,67.11
5839,67.17
5980,67.01
6125,67.24
6267,67.83
6403,68.88
6532,69.55
6655,69.65
6772,69.96
6884,69.89
6993,70.26
7100,70.90
7207,71.04
7318,71.50
7435,71.87
7561,72.23
7701,72.37
7854,72.62
8017,72.67
8182,72.83
8344,73.19
8495,73.81
8631,74.37
8755,74.57
8874,74.82
8993,74.49
9118,74.90
9259,75.34
9419,75.81
9604,76.15
9810,76.57
10032,76.80
10264,77.09
10504,77.24
10747,77.46
10992,77.49
11240,77.84
11488,78.47
11739,78.74
12005,78.98
12298,79.21
12632,78.81
13022,79.74
13453,79.73
13899,80.70
14334,80.98
14748,81.48
15154,81.55
15573,81.87
16020,81.83
16495,81.99
16975,82.06
17432,82.52
17823,82.79
18279,83.03
19830,83.68
26869,84.92

Vincent Wan
August 2012 PhD. Committee on the Conceptual and Historical Studies of Science, University of Chicago.		
Once and future professor of Biology

Re: Help calculating ideal Lab L values

2013-06-19 by KentB

I suggest you use the 21 x4 chart... measuring 256 is not going to get you a smoother curve.   The random 21x4 works well...this is what Roy suggested...

Cheers

Phil

--- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, "Vincent Wan" <wan@...> wrote:
Show quoted textHide quoted text
>
> Dear All,
> 
> How do I figure out the ideal 256 lab values between black and white (where the paper white is density .03, L 97.63 and DMax is density 1.71 and 14.66)? 
> 
> I want to know this because Using an Epson 1430 and Eboni 100% and a black only profile on Epson Hot Press Natural I get do not get a perfectly linear lab curve after linearization no matter what I try. The irregularities in the curves are apparent both by measurement and visually with Graham Preston's circular targets. 
> 
> Paul Roark's BO curve in his Eboni1400 curve set have the same problems so I figure that its not just me.
> 
> I'd figure that I could try and edit the .quad values directly and get a better curve if I knew what the ideal densities were.
> 
> As a first step, I have printed a 256 gray target. It takes 2 pages for easy reading with a Spyder3Print spectro and wide margins). Since the Spyder3Print spectra is noisy, I sampled each patch 10 times from two separate printings of the target. The table below gives average of the 5,120 measurements and the quad ink values.
> 
> Following the groups advice, I am using QTR print.
> 
> Has anyone else fount the Spyder3Print spectra to be noisy? I find that the density values are most consistent, followed by Lab L, and Lab a and b are equally nosiest. I think that (at least for Lab L) that the very dark values are noiser than others.
> 
> I've been using 10 samples for each patch and two printings as a practical limit. From series of several hundred measurements of the calibration target and paper white I know that more samples would be better. But I just don't have the patience. I intend to chick the final results with 10 samples from three or four printings of the target.
> 
> Any advice would be welcome. 
> 
> Thank you,
> 
> Vincent
> 
> Profile:
> PRINTER=Quad1400-Eb
> CURVE_NAME=1430-eHPn-Eb_K100
> 
> GRAPH_CURVE=YES
> 
> N_OF_INKS=6
> DEFAULT_INK_LIMIT=35
> LIMIT_K=
> BOOST_K=41
> LIMIT_C=
> LIMIT_M=
> LIMIT_Y=
> LIMIT_LC=
> LIMIT_LM=
> 
> N_OF_GRAY_PARTS=1
> GRAY_INK_1=K
> GRAY_VAL_1=100
> 
> GRAY_HIGHLIGHT=10
> GRAY_SHADOW=10
> GRAY_OVERLAP=0
> GRAY_GAMMA=1
> GRAY_CURVE=
> 
> N_OF_TONER_PARTS=0
> TONER_HIGHLIGHT=10
> TONER_SHADOW=10
> TONER_GAMMA=1
> TONER_CURVE=
> N_OF_TONER_2_PARTS=0
> TONER_2_HIGHLIGHT=10
> TONER_2_SHADOW=10
> TONER_2_GAMMA=1
> TONER_2_CURVE=
> 
> N_OF_UNUSED=5
> UNUSED_INK_1=C
> UNUSED_INK_2=M
> UNUSED_INK_3=Y
> UNUSED_INK_4=LC
> UNUSED_INK_5=LM
> 
> LINEARIZE="0.03 0.05 0.08 0.12 0.17 0.22 0.27 0.33 0.40 0.46 0.53 0.60 0.66 0.73 0.79 0.86 0.93 1.00 1.06 1.12 1.16 1.21 1.27 1.32 1.39 1.44 1.49 1.54 1.58 1.63 1.69 1.72 1.73"
> 
> 
> Measured data:
> 
> quad value,100 - Lab l
> 0,2.13
> 14,2.53
> 27,2.85
> 42,3.25
> 57,3.65
> 71,4.04
> 85,4.45
> 98,4.78
> 111,5.14
> 123,5.54
> 135,5.94
> 147,6.19
> 158,6.52
> 170,6.86
> 181,7.14
> 193,7.53
> 204,7.77
> 216,8.19
> 228,8.59
> 239,8.82
> 251,9.11
> 262,9.43
> 274,9.72
> 285,10.09
> 296,10.41
> 308,10.75
> 319,11.01
> 330,11.29
> 341,11.64
> 352,11.87
> 364,12.34
> 374,12.57
> 386,12.71
> 397,13.10
> 408,13.51
> 420,13.74
> 432,14.09
> 444,14.42
> 457,14.77
> 469,14.96
> 483,15.47
> 496,15.35
> 509,15.94
> 523,16.31
> 537,16.82
> 551,17.16
> 566,17.58
> 581,17.94
> 596,18.14
> 611,18.69
> 627,19.20
> 643,19.57
> 659,19.95
> 675,20.28
> 692,20.44
> 708,21.01
> 724,21.25
> 741,21.66
> 757,22.17
> 774,22.54
> 790,23.28
> 807,23.51
> 822,23.83
> 839,24.07
> 855,24.49
> 871,24.90
> 886,25.29
> 902,25.69
> 918,26.03
> 933,26.19
> 948,26.39
> 963,26.54
> 978,27.02
> 993,27.38
> 1008,27.62
> 1023,28.12
> 1037,28.42
> 1052,29.02
> 1067,29.27
> 1082,29.58
> 1097,29.68
> 1113,30.17
> 1129,30.73
> 1145,30.70
> 1162,30.76
> 1180,31.10
> 1198,31.71
> 1216,31.90
> 1236,32.13
> 1256,32.32
> 1277,32.90
> 1298,33.10
> 1319,34.01
> 1341,34.34
> 1363,34.97
> 1385,35.12
> 1408,35.32
> 1430,35.88
> 1452,36.26
> 1474,36.68
> 1496,36.73
> 1517,37.02
> 1539,37.15
> 1560,37.66
> 1581,38.07
> 1602,37.97
> 1623,38.71
> 1644,38.45
> 1665,39.46
> 1686,39.75
> 1707,39.86
> 1729,40.27
> 1750,40.54
> 1772,41.12
> 1794,41.29
> 1815,41.60
> 1838,41.81
> 1862,41.85
> 1886,42.20
> 1910,42.54
> 1936,42.91
> 1962,43.19
> 1989,43.41
> 2017,43.84
> 2046,44.62
> 2076,45.07
> 2108,45.36
> 2140,45.66
> 2173,44.86
> 2206,45.89
> 2240,45.93
> 2274,46.01
> 2307,46.05
> 2340,47.01
> 2373,46.86
> 2404,47.36
> 2435,47.27
> 2466,47.00
> 2496,46.92
> 2526,47.52
> 2557,49.77
> 2588,49.89
> 2619,50.04
> 2652,50.27
> 2686,50.56
> 2722,51.42
> 2760,51.70
> 2799,51.64
> 2840,51.46
> 2883,52.49
> 2927,52.43
> 2971,52.86
> 3015,52.53
> 3060,52.49
> 3104,52.47
> 3147,53.09
> 3190,55.24
> 3232,55.82
> 3273,55.96
> 3314,56.11
> 3355,55.97
> 3396,56.96
> 3436,57.28
> 3478,57.22
> 3520,57.08
> 3563,57.73
> 3607,57.96
> 3652,58.09
> 3699,57.87
> 3746,57.16
> 3793,57.63
> 3842,57.93
> 3890,60.00
> 3939,60.51
> 3988,60.68
> 4037,60.87
> 4086,60.71
> 4136,61.21
> 4186,61.75
> 4238,61.79
> 4291,61.85
> 4346,62.36
> 4404,62.55
> 4465,62.66
> 4530,62.77
> 4597,62.16
> 4668,62.45
> 4740,62.89
> 4814,64.32
> 4888,64.90
> 4961,65.12
> 5033,65.29
> 5102,64.97
> 5171,65.54
> 5241,65.84
> 5315,66.10
> 5395,66.43
> 5486,66.85
> 5589,67.10
> 5707,67.11
> 5839,67.17
> 5980,67.01
> 6125,67.24
> 6267,67.83
> 6403,68.88
> 6532,69.55
> 6655,69.65
> 6772,69.96
> 6884,69.89
> 6993,70.26
> 7100,70.90
> 7207,71.04
> 7318,71.50
> 7435,71.87
> 7561,72.23
> 7701,72.37
> 7854,72.62
> 8017,72.67
> 8182,72.83
> 8344,73.19
> 8495,73.81
> 8631,74.37
> 8755,74.57
> 8874,74.82
> 8993,74.49
> 9118,74.90
> 9259,75.34
> 9419,75.81
> 9604,76.15
> 9810,76.57
> 10032,76.80
> 10264,77.09
> 10504,77.24
> 10747,77.46
> 10992,77.49
> 11240,77.84
> 11488,78.47
> 11739,78.74
> 12005,78.98
> 12298,79.21
> 12632,78.81
> 13022,79.74
> 13453,79.73
> 13899,80.70
> 14334,80.98
> 14748,81.48
> 15154,81.55
> 15573,81.87
> 16020,81.83
> 16495,81.99
> 16975,82.06
> 17432,82.52
> 17823,82.79
> 18279,83.03
> 19830,83.68
> 26869,84.92
> 
> Vincent Wan
> August 2012 PhD. Committee on the Conceptual and Historical Studies of Science, University of Chicago.		
> Once and future professor of Biology
>

Re: Help calculating ideal Lab L values

2013-06-19 by Vincent Wan

Sorry my previous post was unclear.

I have read the previous discussions on this board on linearization using QTR to build curves. I have tried different ink limit, boost, gray_highlight and gray_shadow values with 21, 33, and 50 gray targets and not archived satisfactory results.

Phil wrote:

>> I suggest you use the 21 x4 chart... 
>> measuring 256 is not going to get you a smoother curve. 
>> The random 21x4 works well...this is what Roy suggested...

I think Roy's suggestion applies to linearizing curves using QTR to do the linearization. I've given up on that and an trying to linearize outside of QTR by editing the .quad curve files directly. This is not a new idea and I think it must work. 

To use John Cone's inks you use his .quad files with QTR as a RIP only and not a curve builder. Cone's .quad files were not built with QTR. (Look at any of his curves with QTR curve view and that's immediately apparent). I haven't tried Cone's inks but unless many people are deluding themselves they give good results and validate the results. Unfortunately, Cone's methods are anything but open source so I'm trying to do what he does without knowing how he does it. 

I am thinking of the .quad files as specifying how Lab L values correspond to density by controlling the amounts of ink. The .quad files contain a 16-bit number for each of 256 levels for each ink. I would love if Roy or anyone else would jump in here an clarify this for me. The getting started file in the CurveDesign folder of the current Mac distribution mentions a Curve-Info file but I can's find it so I'm guessing here.

I'm trying to build a black only profile so there is only on ink and, therefor, only one number is determining how dark each level prints. In theory, I should be able to adjust it to get a truly linear curve. 

By editing the 16-bit numbers one should be able to change each level. I am hoping to do so more systematically than by trial and error.

Off to print two more 256 gray targets to measure to separate the actual nonlinearities in the .quad curve from the variations of paper, printer, and measurement.

Thank you,

Vincent


Vincent Wan
August 2012 PhD. Committee on the Conceptual and Historical Studies of Science, University of Chicago.		
Once and future professor of Biology

Re: [QuadtoneRIP] Help calculating ideal Lab L values

2013-06-20 by John Labovitz

On 19 Jun 2013, at 11:26 AM, Vincent Wan <wan@...> wrote:

> I am thinking of the .quad files as specifying how Lab L values correspond to density by controlling the amounts of ink. The .quad files contain a 16-bit number for each of 256 levels for each ink. I would love if Roy or anyone else would jump in here an clarify this for me. The getting started file in the CurveDesign folder of the current Mac distribution mentions a Curve-Info file but I can's find it so I'm guessing here.

Yes, that's right.

A .quad file can be looked at as a series of X-Y tables, with the inputs along the X axis, expressed as 8-bit integers (256 levels), and the outputs along the Y value, expressed as a 16-bit integers (65536 levels). The file consists of one or more "blocks" of 256 numbers. There is one block per channel (i.e., ink), and the blocks are listed in the order described in the first line of the file (like "## QuadToneRIP K,C,M,Y,LC,LM"; I believe the comments, starting with "#", are ignored by QTR itself.) The numbers in each block are the 16-bit Y values that correspond to the X value that's implied in the sequence number (e.g., line #1 of a block corresponds to an X value of 0).

So if a block starts with:

	0
	17
	34
	...

then it could be interpreted as points in an X-Y table as such:

	0,0
	1,17
	2,34
	...

I can confirm by my own experimentation that you can indeed generate your own .quad files, without needing all the complexity (some may say power) of the QTR curve generator. You have to be careful the files are compatible -- make sure the line endings are correct (I'm seeing CR/LF as a line delimiter) and that the files have the right permission, and, of course, are in the right place.

Hope this helps.

--John

Re: Help calculating ideal Lab L values

2013-06-21 by phlg@ymail.com

You can build an xls file based on the Linearization Checker of Jon Cone, with 256 entries instead of 21.

Pascal



--- In QuadtoneRIP@...m, "Vincent Wan" <wan@...> wrote:
Show quoted textHide quoted text
>
> Dear All,
> 
> How do I figure out the ideal 256 lab values between black and white (where the paper white is density .03, L 97.63 and DMax is density 1.71 and 14.66)? 
> 
> I want to know this because Using an Epson 1430 and Eboni 100% and a black only profile on Epson Hot Press Natural I get do not get a perfectly linear lab curve after linearization no matter what I try. The irregularities in the curves are apparent both by measurement and visually with Graham Preston's circular targets. 
> 
> Paul Roark's BO curve in his Eboni1400 curve set have the same problems so I figure that its not just me.
> 
> I'd figure that I could try and edit the .quad values directly and get a better curve if I knew what the ideal densities were.
> 
> As a first step, I have printed a 256 gray target. It takes 2 pages for easy reading with a Spyder3Print spectro and wide margins). Since the Spyder3Print spectra is noisy, I sampled each patch 10 times from two separate printings of the target. The table below gives average of the 5,120 measurements and the quad ink values.
> 
> Following the groups advice, I am using QTR print.
> 
> Has anyone else fount the Spyder3Print spectra to be noisy? I find that the density values are most consistent, followed by Lab L, and Lab a and b are equally nosiest. I think that (at least for Lab L) that the very dark values are noiser than others.
> 
> I've been using 10 samples for each patch and two printings as a practical limit. From series of several hundred measurements of the calibration target and paper white I know that more samples would be better. But I just don't have the patience. I intend to chick the final results with 10 samples from three or four printings of the target.
> 
> Any advice would be welcome. 
> 
> Thank you,
> 
> Vincent
> 
> Profile:
> PRINTER=Quad1400-Eb
> CURVE_NAME=1430-eHPn-Eb_K100
> 
> GRAPH_CURVE=YES
> 
> N_OF_INKS=6
> DEFAULT_INK_LIMIT=35
> LIMIT_K=
> BOOST_K=41
> LIMIT_C=
> LIMIT_M=
> LIMIT_Y=
> LIMIT_LC=
> LIMIT_LM=
> 
> N_OF_GRAY_PARTS=1
> GRAY_INK_1=K
> GRAY_VAL_1=100
> 
> GRAY_HIGHLIGHT=10
> GRAY_SHADOW=10
> GRAY_OVERLAP=0
> GRAY_GAMMA=1
> GRAY_CURVE=
> 
> N_OF_TONER_PARTS=0
> TONER_HIGHLIGHT=10
> TONER_SHADOW=10
> TONER_GAMMA=1
> TONER_CURVE=
> N_OF_TONER_2_PARTS=0
> TONER_2_HIGHLIGHT=10
> TONER_2_SHADOW=10
> TONER_2_GAMMA=1
> TONER_2_CURVE=
> 
> N_OF_UNUSED=5
> UNUSED_INK_1=C
> UNUSED_INK_2=M
> UNUSED_INK_3=Y
> UNUSED_INK_4=LC
> UNUSED_INK_5=LM
> 
> LINEARIZE="0.03 0.05 0.08 0.12 0.17 0.22 0.27 0.33 0.40 0.46 0.53 0.60 0.66 0.73 0.79 0.86 0.93 1.00 1.06 1.12 1.16 1.21 1.27 1.32 1.39 1.44 1.49 1.54 1.58 1.63 1.69 1.72 1.73"
> 
> 
> Measured data:
> 
> quad value,100 - Lab l
> 0,2.13
> 14,2.53
> 27,2.85
> 42,3.25
> 57,3.65
> 71,4.04
> 85,4.45
> 98,4.78
> 111,5.14
> 123,5.54
> 135,5.94
> 147,6.19
> 158,6.52
> 170,6.86
> 181,7.14
> 193,7.53
> 204,7.77
> 216,8.19
> 228,8.59
> 239,8.82
> 251,9.11
> 262,9.43
> 274,9.72
> 285,10.09
> 296,10.41
> 308,10.75
> 319,11.01
> 330,11.29
> 341,11.64
> 352,11.87
> 364,12.34
> 374,12.57
> 386,12.71
> 397,13.10
> 408,13.51
> 420,13.74
> 432,14.09
> 444,14.42
> 457,14.77
> 469,14.96
> 483,15.47
> 496,15.35
> 509,15.94
> 523,16.31
> 537,16.82
> 551,17.16
> 566,17.58
> 581,17.94
> 596,18.14
> 611,18.69
> 627,19.20
> 643,19.57
> 659,19.95
> 675,20.28
> 692,20.44
> 708,21.01
> 724,21.25
> 741,21.66
> 757,22.17
> 774,22.54
> 790,23.28
> 807,23.51
> 822,23.83
> 839,24.07
> 855,24.49
> 871,24.90
> 886,25.29
> 902,25.69
> 918,26.03
> 933,26.19
> 948,26.39
> 963,26.54
> 978,27.02
> 993,27.38
> 1008,27.62
> 1023,28.12
> 1037,28.42
> 1052,29.02
> 1067,29.27
> 1082,29.58
> 1097,29.68
> 1113,30.17
> 1129,30.73
> 1145,30.70
> 1162,30.76
> 1180,31.10
> 1198,31.71
> 1216,31.90
> 1236,32.13
> 1256,32.32
> 1277,32.90
> 1298,33.10
> 1319,34.01
> 1341,34.34
> 1363,34.97
> 1385,35.12
> 1408,35.32
> 1430,35.88
> 1452,36.26
> 1474,36.68
> 1496,36.73
> 1517,37.02
> 1539,37.15
> 1560,37.66
> 1581,38.07
> 1602,37.97
> 1623,38.71
> 1644,38.45
> 1665,39.46
> 1686,39.75
> 1707,39.86
> 1729,40.27
> 1750,40.54
> 1772,41.12
> 1794,41.29
> 1815,41.60
> 1838,41.81
> 1862,41.85
> 1886,42.20
> 1910,42.54
> 1936,42.91
> 1962,43.19
> 1989,43.41
> 2017,43.84
> 2046,44.62
> 2076,45.07
> 2108,45.36
> 2140,45.66
> 2173,44.86
> 2206,45.89
> 2240,45.93
> 2274,46.01
> 2307,46.05
> 2340,47.01
> 2373,46.86
> 2404,47.36
> 2435,47.27
> 2466,47.00
> 2496,46.92
> 2526,47.52
> 2557,49.77
> 2588,49.89
> 2619,50.04
> 2652,50.27
> 2686,50.56
> 2722,51.42
> 2760,51.70
> 2799,51.64
> 2840,51.46
> 2883,52.49
> 2927,52.43
> 2971,52.86
> 3015,52.53
> 3060,52.49
> 3104,52.47
> 3147,53.09
> 3190,55.24
> 3232,55.82
> 3273,55.96
> 3314,56.11
> 3355,55.97
> 3396,56.96
> 3436,57.28
> 3478,57.22
> 3520,57.08
> 3563,57.73
> 3607,57.96
> 3652,58.09
> 3699,57.87
> 3746,57.16
> 3793,57.63
> 3842,57.93
> 3890,60.00
> 3939,60.51
> 3988,60.68
> 4037,60.87
> 4086,60.71
> 4136,61.21
> 4186,61.75
> 4238,61.79
> 4291,61.85
> 4346,62.36
> 4404,62.55
> 4465,62.66
> 4530,62.77
> 4597,62.16
> 4668,62.45
> 4740,62.89
> 4814,64.32
> 4888,64.90
> 4961,65.12
> 5033,65.29
> 5102,64.97
> 5171,65.54
> 5241,65.84
> 5315,66.10
> 5395,66.43
> 5486,66.85
> 5589,67.10
> 5707,67.11
> 5839,67.17
> 5980,67.01
> 6125,67.24
> 6267,67.83
> 6403,68.88
> 6532,69.55
> 6655,69.65
> 6772,69.96
> 6884,69.89
> 6993,70.26
> 7100,70.90
> 7207,71.04
> 7318,71.50
> 7435,71.87
> 7561,72.23
> 7701,72.37
> 7854,72.62
> 8017,72.67
> 8182,72.83
> 8344,73.19
> 8495,73.81
> 8631,74.37
> 8755,74.57
> 8874,74.82
> 8993,74.49
> 9118,74.90
> 9259,75.34
> 9419,75.81
> 9604,76.15
> 9810,76.57
> 10032,76.80
> 10264,77.09
> 10504,77.24
> 10747,77.46
> 10992,77.49
> 11240,77.84
> 11488,78.47
> 11739,78.74
> 12005,78.98
> 12298,79.21
> 12632,78.81
> 13022,79.74
> 13453,79.73
> 13899,80.70
> 14334,80.98
> 14748,81.48
> 15154,81.55
> 15573,81.87
> 16020,81.83
> 16495,81.99
> 16975,82.06
> 17432,82.52
> 17823,82.79
> 18279,83.03
> 19830,83.68
> 26869,84.92
> 
> Vincent Wan
> August 2012 PhD. Committee on the Conceptual and Historical Studies of Science, University of Chicago.		
> Once and future professor of Biology
>

Move to quarantaine

This moves the raw source file on disk only. The archive index is not changed automatically, so you still need to run a manual refresh afterward.