|WikiProject Technology||(Rated C-class)|
Once upon a time, if you wanted to destroy a document you could burn it in the fireplace or some other heating device where coal or wood was burned. I suppose the shredder was invented some time after offices where this wasn't feasible started to become common -- and perhaps given a further boost by the proliferation of non-smoking environments, where even the burning of an occasional item in an ashtray or metal wastebasket was problematic. But that's guesswork. Is the history of the shredder recorded somewhere? 220.127.116.11 02:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Non SI Units
Many measurements here are in the non SI unit pounds. They should probably be converted to grams or kilograms. Don't supposed anyone knows if there is a wikipedia policy on units?ConditionalZenith 03:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
- You can go ahead and add the conversions if you want, e.g. "It can shred 1000 lb/hr (X kg/hr)". Here's the page from the manual of style MOS. Tocharianne 00:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm looking for a clarification about the following statement:
Modern computer technology considerably speeds up the process of reassembling shredded documents. The strips are scanned on both sides, and then the computer determines how the strips should be put together. Robert Johnson of the National Association for Information Destruction, has stated that there is a huge demand for document reconstruction. Several companies offer commercial document reconstruction services. For maximum security, documents should be shredded so that the words of the document go through the shredder horizontally (i.e. perpendicular to the blades).
First, I find the wording of "perpendicular to the blades" confusing. I have experimentally determined with my two shredders, a cross-cut and a diamond-cut shredder, that inserting the page in such a way that the words are parallel to the opening of the shredder yields the best results. Usually, only one or two letters are consecutive, though there may be several lines of them present on one shred of paper.
Good way to shred documents: |__________| shredder word word
Rotating the paper 90 degrees, so that the words enter the shredder perpendicular to the opening, I often got shreds with whole words.
Bad way to shred documents: |__________| shredder w w w w o o o o r r r r d d d d
I guess that is what was meant with the original statement, but I nonetheless believe it is unclear. After having performed these experiments, I now know how to shred my documents to keep humans without access to computer reconstruction away. However, it sparked my interest in what is best to foil attempts that computers may make to recover the document. I'm no expert in this area, so I can only make the educated guess that it is still easier for a computer if it has consecutive letters or whole words, but this is just not my area of specialty.
I believe the best way to hinder computers from recovering documents is to shred paper the same way as described above, but I would really like a clarification from an expert.
Htowninsomniac 20:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- buy a scanner with a higher security rating. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 03:37, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
agreed but the cross cut will not shread on the same way as it showing in image.Cross cut just shread cross way tough to describe in the rough diagram but can understnad better by look on that image.Diamond cut is a one kind of cross cut shredder.A crosscut gives a out put of a shreaded paper in zig zag way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crunchcorn1 (talk • contribs) 20:59, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
DIN 32757-1 - HS 6
The HS 6 level is not an official part of the DIN 32757-1 standard. Only levels one to five are actually official. This should be reflected in the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cros13 (talk • contribs) 20:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
"Adolf" your pal
Or why a wiki article should not get casual. Please folks, '"Adolf" needed to shred .... ' is not the style wikipedia should embrace.
- Why would he need to shred "anti-Nazi propaganda" in 1955? The company exists but the story is fishy. Sauce plz.--22.214.171.124 (talk) 15:26, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Mobile Shredding Inaccuracies
I removed the insinuation that mobile shredding is a less expensive alternative to owning a shredder. If you divide the cost of a shredder by the average lifespan, its approximately half the cost of having a service do the job for you. Then add in the cost of paying an employee and using a service is less than half of buying a shredder. It should be put back in as fact.
Also removed the comment that all mobile shredding companies recycle the residue. Many do, but definitely not all of them.
Finally for those interested in the history of the paper shredder: The last major design revision was in the 1930's when Adolf Ehinger was observing a kitchen pasta maker and the simple strips of dough it created. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 18:05, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
I propose that Industrial Paper Shredders be merged into Paper shredder. I think that the content in the Industrial Paper Shredders article can easily be explained in the context of Paper shredder, and the Paper shredder article is of a reasonable size in which the merging of Industrial Paper Shredders will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. User:Aiden127 (talk) 07:49, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
The Applications section deviates from the topic of paper shredders. The entire section could be removed or re-written, as the application is covered fairly clearly throughout the article. Suspender guy (talk) 20:51, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Chad is a cool word, but it's a very specific term. It is "...the fragment created when holes are made in paper or card...". While it's possible that a "shredder" could be designed to work by punching holes, there's no evidence for that. Snori (talk) 08:30, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
I've re-organised the article to be much more logically laid out, but also removed quite a bit of material. If you feel strongly that something should added back in, then of course go ahead - but please try to keep to the new structure. Snori (talk) 00:21, 23 February 2017 (UTC)