![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Lived from 1857-1894 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.234.242.194 ( talk • contribs) 19:46, 27 February 2003 (UTC)
Wireless application quote. I don't believe the quote. The word wireless was coined to describe radio sets for communication over distance without wires as in previous telegraphy. plainly, if he used the word 'wireless' then the application existed! I note there is no source listed. wiki rubbish! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.234.243.2 ( talk) 13:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
'Nothing, \i guess' is totally different. Hertz is being modest about his achievement and its place in science. The wireless quote seems to be a recent invention which fits nicely with things like Watson's assessment of the market for computers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.103.224.91 ( talk) 07:06, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Hello, I put in the entry for Hertz's contributions to creating the subject of contact mechanics which is of vast importance to tribology about a year ago. I am kind of sorry to say that, though the language of the section has been greatly improved, not much contribution has been made to the material. I was hoping to see someone mention how the Hertz-model for contact is used in deriving dry-contact friction models. If anyone is interested then, some helpful sources might be the Greenwood-Williamson model for aspirities, where they base their derivation on the original Hertzian model.
Could someone also describe the famous (among contact mechanics people) Derjaguin-Johnson (with Tabor as his tag team partner :-) ) battle of models? If it does not get done soon, I will document it. Johnson is pretty old now, and it should be okay to have a page on him too along with Tabor, Greenwood and McCool. PO!. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.17.59.250 ( talk) 21:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
I will add something here. I object to the phrase saying "the most significant failure of his theory was to neglect adhesion." There is no failure, and his theory works for a huge number of engineering applications. It is really only with the advent of nano-indentation, or polymer or bio-indentation, etc that adhesion is becoming important. Go ahead and mention something about small size scales, but in no way call this a failure.
129.10.65.246 (
talk)
20:33, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
This article indicates that Hertz's death in 1894 was due to Wegener's granulomatosis. Wegener's was not a diagnosis until the 1930's. As someone who has Wegener's, I know how difficult it is to diagnose. People are still dying because they are not diagnosed in time to give them the treatment they need so I don't know how anyone could say definitively that he died of Wegener's granulomatosis. What a crock! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.181.82.54 ( talk) 11:37, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Whoever wrote this article is a complete retard. They wrote "meter" instead of "metre". This is a SCIENTIFIC article, so measurements should be written in the correct, scientific way. You were writing about meters and metres in the same article and spelling the words the same. Why should anyone trust what this guy wrote when he clearly knows so little about science that he can't even spell a basic unit of measurement?
Huey45 07:42, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Hey, Huey, calm down! Make your point without the character assassination! 152.17.62.18 20:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
When reading this article as part of my research for a report, I found it very annoying that the references are not numbered and referred to in the text, but rather itemized at the bottom of the article. Could the authors or other equally qualified people please fix this, as it makes research and referencing infinitely easier, especially since some of the articles have German titles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.243.240.42 ( talk) 12:36, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
This article contains unedited extracts from
http://www.juliantrubin.com/bigten/hertzexperiment.html
that - although experimentation, of course, is a good thing - probably should be deleted. 79.138.175.84 ( talk) 11:08, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Surely the SI unit is capitalise as Hertz not hertz. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ferriescarie ( talk • contribs) 07:43, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
I can't seem to figure out who was "Heinrich David Hertz" since his father was Gustav Ferdinand Hertz which is the one who converted (right?) so ho is this "Heinrich David Hertz" and why is he mentioned here? the whole section is cluttered with information that isn't written very clear — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.108.213.8 ( talk) 15:33, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
In addition to that, it seems odd that much is made of this Heinrich David Hertz, who apparantly did not achieve anything to warrant additional information, but the article does not contain that "our" Hertz was the uncle of Gustav Ludwig Hertz, who won the Nobel prize in Physics in 1925 (together with James Franck). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.100.120.41 ( talk) 06:51, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Also in the "Early years" section it reads "In recognition of his work, the unit of frequency — one cycle per second — is named the "hertz".". That should be rephrased to "In recognition of his work, the unit of frequency — the number of cycles per second — is named the "hertz"." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.100.120.41 ( talk) 06:43, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
This article could be greatly improved for many (most?) readers by mentioning in the lead section that the SI unit for "cycles per second" hertz is named in honor of Heinrich Hertz. Covering this only in the legacy section doesn't give it the prominence its notability deserves. ( sdsds - talk) 06:28, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
The unit should be spelled capitalized, as it is in the page used as a reference. In most cases in SI a capitalized unit means the unit is named for a person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.89.39.19 ( talk) 20:01, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
How did he die from a disease that wasn't described until 40 years after his death? 82.107.79.54 ( talk) 08:11, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure which "displacement" is meant to be linked to. EdwardLane ( talk) 18:01, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
"So Hertz's research from his days as a lecturer, preceding his great work on electromagnetism, which he himself considered with his characteristic soberness to be trivial, has come down to the age of nanotechnology." Which does he consider trivial - his research from his days a lecturer, or his great work on electromagnetism? +|||||||||||||||||||||||||+ ( talk) 03:34, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
...is not a Jewish cemetery. See here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Inventor ( talk • contribs) 12:50, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
This is not correct. Hughes may deserve credit as the first person to demonstrate radio transmission. But he did not demonstrate Maxwell's theory. In his article in the Electrician, Hughes admits (p. 40) he was not certain at the time whether he was dealing with rays or waves. A number of people were specifically attempting to verify Maxwell's electromagnetic wave theory at that time. Oliver Lodge described a series of experiments he performed with a Leyden jar and wires that clearly exhibited wave behavior. However, Lodge claimed that instead of immediately writing up and submitting his results for publication he left on vacation. When he returned, Hertz had already published and achieved worldwide fame.
Hertz fully deserves the credit he received as first to demonstrate (prove) Maxwell's theory. Hughes and Lodge deserve mention later in the article as researchers who fell short. Claudeb ( talk) 21:42, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Hughes was the first to demonstrate the electromagnetic waves predicted by Maxwell's theory. This is not in dispute. The events, dates, and witnesses were eventually published in the books and scientific journals of the time about Hughes's demonstrations (unpublished papers exist also), and no one has ever disputed them. Hughes was the first to demonstrate the electromagnetic waves predicted by Maxwell's theory, and no other fact is relevant.
...except the fact that Hughes did his demonstrations before Hertz. Hertz's notability arises not because he was the SECOND [1] person to demonstrate the production of electromagnetic waves, but instead because he was the FIRST to rule out everything else that they might have been, but were not (other wireless phenomena like magnetic induction, etc). To achieve that, Hertz used more rigorous science and engineering techniques than Hughes had used. That is the key fact that makes Hertz important.
To remove all of that information makes it less convincing why Hertz is so important. It reduces his stature as a brilliant experimental scientist in the field of electromagnetics, unlike any that had come before him. The information must be restored. It has been there for several years, and to remove it now smacks of a campaign against Hughes, rather than an exposition of the achievements of Hertz. See the recent removals of information mentioning Hughes in the Invention of radio article.
Below is the deleted information in the introductory paragraph. Note that each wikilinked word and phrase further educates the reader about the principles of science and engineering, which Hertz had utilized in a "masterly" fashion to eliminate doubt about what was happening.
Heinrich Rudolf Hertz (German: [h???]; 22 February 1857 – 1 January 1894) was a German physicist who clarified and expanded James Clerk Maxwell's electromagnetic theory of light, which was first demonstrated by David Edward Hughes using non- rigorous trial and error procedures. Hertz is distinguished from Maxwell and Hughes because he was the first to conclusively prove the existence of electromagnetic waves by engineering instruments to transmit and receive radio pulses using experimental procedures that ruled out all other known wireless phenomena. [2] The scientific unit of frequency – cycles per second – was named the " hertz" in his honor. [3]
Badon ( talk) 03:09, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
I cleaned up history and more redundancy/repeating paragraphs in "Electromagnetic research" following the suggestions of User:Claudeb (still chasing it down). Added more "why" to the section and moved images. I also lost the paragraph on other experimenters since they seem to have no connection to Hertz' basic story. Maybe other editors can work them back in but it seems to belong in Invention of radio. Fountains of Bryn Mawr ( talk) 03:37, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Bizarre article. It ends by mentioning the Nazi revisionism and that his FATHER's family was Jewish. Yet it begins apparently mentioning his Jewish mother, although that entire paragraph jumps between family members referring to each as "him", "he" or "Hertz" making it impossible to tell which family member: "Early years Hertz was born in Hamburg, then a sovereign state of the German Confederation, into a prosperous and cultured Hanseatic family. His father, Gustav Ferdinand Hertz, was a writer and later a senator. His (Heinrich's or Gustov's?)mother was the former Anna Elisabeth Pfefferkorn (Jewish). His (?) paternal grandfather David Wolff Hertz (1757–1822), fourth son of Benjamin Wolff Hertz, moved to Hamburg in 1793 where he made his living as a jeweller. He (?) and his (?) wife Schöne Hertz (1760–1834) were buried in the former Jewish cemetery in Ottensen. Their first son Wolff Hertz (1790–1859), was chairman of the Jewish community. His (?!) brother Hertz Hertz(!-confuse us more-Who's on first?) (1797–1862) was a respected businessman. He (?) was married to Betty Oppenheim, the daughter of the banker Salomon Oppenheim, from Cologne. Hertz (!?-which one? Is this a first name or last name?) converted from Judaism to Christianity and took the name Heinrich David Hertz.[3] While studying at the Gelehrtenschule des Johanneums in Hamburg, he showed an aptitude for sciences as well as languages, learning Arabic and Sanskrit. He studied sciences and engineering in the German cities of Dresden, Munich and Berlin, where he studied under Gustav R. Kirchhoff and Hermann von Helmholtz."
Here are some sources that would prove it: 1. http://chem.ch.huji.ac.il/history/hertz.htm 2. http://www1.uni-hamburg.de/rz3a035//hertz.html 3. http://www.jinfo.org/Physicists.html 4. http://www.mlahanas.de/Physics/Bios/HeinrichRudolfHertz.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.125.165.222 ( talk) 17:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
But we are talking only about his ethnicity. It seems that you don't understand that jewish is an ethnicity and judaism is a religion, than even if the family converted he remains jewish by race, because thats something you are been born with and can't change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.125.165.222 ( talk) 19:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Of course we do, and i can show you plenty of examples if you want.77.125.165.222 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.125.165.222 ( talk) 21:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
3rd Opinion Personally I think that, depending on when he converted to Christianity, he should not be added to the Jewish category. If he was only briefly Jewish and converted fairly early on in life he probably shouldn't be added, however if he waited until he was middle aged or so I think he should be added. If he converted early on, I think instead of being added to the Jewish category I think he should be added to a category of people of Jewish decent if one exists. This subject is apparently the subject of much debate all over the Jewish community (see the article Who is a Jew?), so it is not surprising that its difficult for people to agree here. -- Nn123645 ( talk) 20:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
All right, than if you insist for the time being i won't categorize him, buts if its fine with you i would just mention his religion change in the article.77.125.165.222 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.125.165.222 ( talk) 10:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps one of our more interested editors was mistaken to ask my opinion, but here it is anyway. Seems to me, the precedents of Felix Mendelsohn and Benjamin Disraeli apply, despite differences in details of sectarian and ethnic affiliation. Analogies to 20th century figures are less relevant. The present bio subject was Jewish by paternal ancestry, Catholic by upbringing, and whatever his opinions on religious questions may have been, they are not why people in later centuries are interested in him. The text should mention both his ethnic and his religious affiliation very briefly, and he should be included in the relevant sectarian and ethnic scientist categories. If we're voting, then that's my vote, but I don't have a lot more to say about the matter. Jim.henderson ( talk) 16:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
The German article, shorter anyway, does not mention any Jewish aspect. Besides, the web pages given at the top here pretty much reference each other. One is taken from an older version of en-Wiki itself, the page at uni-hamburg.de/rz3a035//hertz.html is surely a private user page, yet jinfo.org uses it as a reference. Folks, please respect
WP:V and
WP:RS, use proper sources, biographies written by historians, starting e.g. with recent Google Books
[10]
or Scholar
[11]
After 1933, the Nazis tried to get rid of many kinds of people, communists and social democrats being the first targets. One strategy was to simply call somebody Jewish, and
Gustav Ludwig Hertz was ousted this way, despite colleagues voicing their opinion, see e.g. Physics and National Socialism: An Anthology of Primary Sources, By Klaus Hentschel
[12]
The Who's Who in Jewish History, By Joan Comay
[13]
barely mentions Heinrich, only repeating the Gustav L. H. case. So, mention one or two sentences that can be properly sourced, but don't copy speculations from dubious web pages, where anybody can write anything.
These seem to be reputable recent sources:
-- Matthead DisOuß 17:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I say yes to the suggested edit, so for the time being i will keep on looking for different sources to prove the point, that despite the comment above his father was jewish and his mother was not, but about the nazis removing his portrait in hamburg he had nothing to do with communism or socalism, and the october Bolshevic revolution was 24 years after he died, so it was only because of his backround. User:zivb2007 —Preceding comment was added at 17:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I think we should mention his parents's backround in "early years" and the remove of the portrait in "nazi revisionism".What do you people say?
talk —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Zivb2007 (
talk •
contribs)
00:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
What about sub-categories of Jews? Orthodox, Conservative, Jews who converted, etc? RMFan1 ( talk) 16:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Excuse me, but this ain't far away from dumb or childish (depending on the way the claimant admits their age). How about writing which salad he prefered, or the circumference for his waist? I'm sure such information would help for a true fanship of Hertz's, such as a separate wiki site or a H. Hertz forum. I really appreciate the fact that Jews look after Jews with so much care, and that a bunch of encyclopedic sites about Jews around the world exist, but this is way too much for a general article. Wikipedia is not the right place to write any statement just because it was already stated somewhere else. ( Impy4ever ( talk) 22:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC))
Have a look turkish talk art From English article "In 1892, an infection was diagnosed (after a bout of severe migraines) and Hertz underwent some operations to correct the illness. He died of Wegener's granulomatosis at the age of 36 in Bonn, Germany in 1894, and was buried in Ohlsdorf, Hamburg at the Jewish cemetery.[6]
Hertz's wife, Elizabeth Hertz (maiden name: Elizabeth Doll), did not remarry. Heinrich Hertz left two daughters, Joanna and Mathilde. Subsequently, all three women left Germany in the 1930s and went to England, after the rise of Adolf Hitler. Charles Susskind interviewed Mathilde Hertz in the 1960s and he later published a book on Heinrich Hertz. Heinrich Hertz's daughters never married and he does not have any descendants, according to the book by Susskind."
22.02.2012 Google's doodle is Rudolf Hertz as google did before, most of the doodle character's root is Jewish. Did you also notice that ? Why google do that ,Albert Einstein and others(showmen,artist etc.). Some people pay for that to google or google do that for what? I really wonder. why? As if there is a deep operation.' Davutgurbuz 08:57, 22 Şubat 2012 (UTC)
You discuss Hertz Jewish family background which seems to be correctly described, although I am not yet sure who in the family converted to a Christian faith. Father? Son? Or maybe a grandfather? However there is another serious mistake in the presentation: It says that Hertz was Lutheran which would be normal for someone from a Hanseatic family. Why do you write that his father converted to Catholicism? What is the source? This makes no sense at all. It implies three religions in the family: Father Catholic with a Jewish history and son Lutheran - as the majority in Hamburg. This would be extremely unusual. My guess is that the father might have converted to Protestantism (that is he became Lutheran) rather than to Catholicism in order to have the same religion as his wife and bring up the children with a common faith. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.212.128.130 ( talk) 14:40, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
This must be said. In Fact. Jews stays Jews. Whatever the Religion is. Heinrich Hertz came from jewish People and this is the Point. And also many others, Albert Einstein, Paul Ehrlich and many more! The Germans think since World War II. All inteligent Jews were German. But this is wrong. Since World War II no more! Germans killed Jews in WW2. Over 8 Million in Europe. Over 6 Million is fact and over 2 Milion are missing. Also was the german Martin Luther (1483 – 1546) a Jews Hater. He wrote Books like "On the Jews and Their Lies".
Unless someone intend to scream loudly I will try to remove the links to his Jewish heritage. The way the text reads at the moment it seems like pro-jews try fishing for anything resembling a Jew among successful individuals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.199.19.3 ( talk) 11:34, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Hey, I'm either missing something or there's a mistake in the Nazi revisionism section - the Nazis didn't came into power until 1933 by which time Hertz would have been dead for well over 30 years. Bonteburg ( talk) 11:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonteburg ( talk • contribs) 11:52, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
The reference is to a picture in the town hall in Hamburg which was removed by the Nazis. It was unfortunately very common that they investigated the background of historically important persons and then censored all people that were identified as being Jewish according to the Nazi definition. That included people that were no longer alive, but could be some sort of role model. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.212.128.130 ( talk) 14:44, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm surprised the article does not mention his grave health problems regarding his jaw. He suffered from some sort of bone malignant condition that gave him excruciating pain all his life. Had al his teeth removed to no avail. You can notice this in his pictures: his jaw doesn't look right if you look closely.
This link comments more on his health:
http://www-history.mcs.st-and.ac.uk/Biographies/Hertz_Heinrich.html
I don't think this caused his death though as Granulomatosis mentioned as cause of death seems to be unrelated but I am not an expert. I just think that Hertz' health problems should be better discussed in the main article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertoff ( talk • contribs) 01:56, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Heinrich Hertz. Please take a moment to review
my edit. You may add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 23:20, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
I have not found any work critical to Hertz's work. It seems to me that Hertz was under the influence of Maxwell's theory and purposefully interpreted his experiments to fit, and give false support, to Maxwell's theory. If the editor of Wikipedia's article on Heinrich Hertz deems useful, I would invite him to read this article ( http://vixra.org/pdf/1511.0065v1.pdf ) in which it is shown that Hertz was not correct to claim that he detected the electric and the magnetic components of the radio wave produced in his experiments - and include a reference to this in the Wikipedia article. The main point is: Hertz detected only magnetic waves through electromagnetic induction occurring in his circular wire detector and no reason can be given for believing that he was detecting any electric wave. The main argument is: Hertz held his detector vertically at all times but used a double standard when interpreting the cause of the sparks at the gap of his detector: on one hand he used electromagnetic induction (for the magnetic component, dotted wave in his diagram), but on the other hand claimed electric field (for the electric component, full line in his diagram). Hertz's fallacy is: when you hold the detector vertically, in both situations you get electromagnetic induction no matter how you orient the gap of the detector - in that position the effect of electromagnetic induction is maximum (Hertz himself said the magnetic field lines are perpendicular to the plane of the detector in the vertical position he used in his experiments). Please excuse me if this discussion was not allowed here, I only thought this might be relevant. ( Idnwiki ( talk) 16:59, 12 November 2015 (UTC)Ionel DINU Idnwiki ( talk) 16:59, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
"I will also argue that the theoretical claim that radio waves are composed of oscillating electric and magnetic fields has never been verified by experiment – the truth is that Hertz interpreted his experiments to agree with Maxwell’s theory."
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Lived from 1857-1894 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.234.242.194 ( talk • contribs) 19:46, 27 February 2003 (UTC)
Wireless application quote. I don't believe the quote. The word wireless was coined to describe radio sets for communication over distance without wires as in previous telegraphy. plainly, if he used the word 'wireless' then the application existed! I note there is no source listed. wiki rubbish! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.234.243.2 ( talk) 13:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
'Nothing, \i guess' is totally different. Hertz is being modest about his achievement and its place in science. The wireless quote seems to be a recent invention which fits nicely with things like Watson's assessment of the market for computers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.103.224.91 ( talk) 07:06, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Hello, I put in the entry for Hertz's contributions to creating the subject of contact mechanics which is of vast importance to tribology about a year ago. I am kind of sorry to say that, though the language of the section has been greatly improved, not much contribution has been made to the material. I was hoping to see someone mention how the Hertz-model for contact is used in deriving dry-contact friction models. If anyone is interested then, some helpful sources might be the Greenwood-Williamson model for aspirities, where they base their derivation on the original Hertzian model.
Could someone also describe the famous (among contact mechanics people) Derjaguin-Johnson (with Tabor as his tag team partner :-) ) battle of models? If it does not get done soon, I will document it. Johnson is pretty old now, and it should be okay to have a page on him too along with Tabor, Greenwood and McCool. PO!. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.17.59.250 ( talk) 21:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
I will add something here. I object to the phrase saying "the most significant failure of his theory was to neglect adhesion." There is no failure, and his theory works for a huge number of engineering applications. It is really only with the advent of nano-indentation, or polymer or bio-indentation, etc that adhesion is becoming important. Go ahead and mention something about small size scales, but in no way call this a failure.
129.10.65.246 (
talk)
20:33, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
This article indicates that Hertz's death in 1894 was due to Wegener's granulomatosis. Wegener's was not a diagnosis until the 1930's. As someone who has Wegener's, I know how difficult it is to diagnose. People are still dying because they are not diagnosed in time to give them the treatment they need so I don't know how anyone could say definitively that he died of Wegener's granulomatosis. What a crock! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.181.82.54 ( talk) 11:37, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Whoever wrote this article is a complete retard. They wrote "meter" instead of "metre". This is a SCIENTIFIC article, so measurements should be written in the correct, scientific way. You were writing about meters and metres in the same article and spelling the words the same. Why should anyone trust what this guy wrote when he clearly knows so little about science that he can't even spell a basic unit of measurement?
Huey45 07:42, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Hey, Huey, calm down! Make your point without the character assassination! 152.17.62.18 20:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
When reading this article as part of my research for a report, I found it very annoying that the references are not numbered and referred to in the text, but rather itemized at the bottom of the article. Could the authors or other equally qualified people please fix this, as it makes research and referencing infinitely easier, especially since some of the articles have German titles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.243.240.42 ( talk) 12:36, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
This article contains unedited extracts from
http://www.juliantrubin.com/bigten/hertzexperiment.html
that - although experimentation, of course, is a good thing - probably should be deleted. 79.138.175.84 ( talk) 11:08, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Surely the SI unit is capitalise as Hertz not hertz. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ferriescarie ( talk • contribs) 07:43, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
I can't seem to figure out who was "Heinrich David Hertz" since his father was Gustav Ferdinand Hertz which is the one who converted (right?) so ho is this "Heinrich David Hertz" and why is he mentioned here? the whole section is cluttered with information that isn't written very clear — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.108.213.8 ( talk) 15:33, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
In addition to that, it seems odd that much is made of this Heinrich David Hertz, who apparantly did not achieve anything to warrant additional information, but the article does not contain that "our" Hertz was the uncle of Gustav Ludwig Hertz, who won the Nobel prize in Physics in 1925 (together with James Franck). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.100.120.41 ( talk) 06:51, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Also in the "Early years" section it reads "In recognition of his work, the unit of frequency — one cycle per second — is named the "hertz".". That should be rephrased to "In recognition of his work, the unit of frequency — the number of cycles per second — is named the "hertz"." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.100.120.41 ( talk) 06:43, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
This article could be greatly improved for many (most?) readers by mentioning in the lead section that the SI unit for "cycles per second" hertz is named in honor of Heinrich Hertz. Covering this only in the legacy section doesn't give it the prominence its notability deserves. ( sdsds - talk) 06:28, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
The unit should be spelled capitalized, as it is in the page used as a reference. In most cases in SI a capitalized unit means the unit is named for a person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.89.39.19 ( talk) 20:01, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
How did he die from a disease that wasn't described until 40 years after his death? 82.107.79.54 ( talk) 08:11, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure which "displacement" is meant to be linked to. EdwardLane ( talk) 18:01, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
"So Hertz's research from his days as a lecturer, preceding his great work on electromagnetism, which he himself considered with his characteristic soberness to be trivial, has come down to the age of nanotechnology." Which does he consider trivial - his research from his days a lecturer, or his great work on electromagnetism? +|||||||||||||||||||||||||+ ( talk) 03:34, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
...is not a Jewish cemetery. See here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Inventor ( talk • contribs) 12:50, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
This is not correct. Hughes may deserve credit as the first person to demonstrate radio transmission. But he did not demonstrate Maxwell's theory. In his article in the Electrician, Hughes admits (p. 40) he was not certain at the time whether he was dealing with rays or waves. A number of people were specifically attempting to verify Maxwell's electromagnetic wave theory at that time. Oliver Lodge described a series of experiments he performed with a Leyden jar and wires that clearly exhibited wave behavior. However, Lodge claimed that instead of immediately writing up and submitting his results for publication he left on vacation. When he returned, Hertz had already published and achieved worldwide fame.
Hertz fully deserves the credit he received as first to demonstrate (prove) Maxwell's theory. Hughes and Lodge deserve mention later in the article as researchers who fell short. Claudeb ( talk) 21:42, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Hughes was the first to demonstrate the electromagnetic waves predicted by Maxwell's theory. This is not in dispute. The events, dates, and witnesses were eventually published in the books and scientific journals of the time about Hughes's demonstrations (unpublished papers exist also), and no one has ever disputed them. Hughes was the first to demonstrate the electromagnetic waves predicted by Maxwell's theory, and no other fact is relevant.
...except the fact that Hughes did his demonstrations before Hertz. Hertz's notability arises not because he was the SECOND [1] person to demonstrate the production of electromagnetic waves, but instead because he was the FIRST to rule out everything else that they might have been, but were not (other wireless phenomena like magnetic induction, etc). To achieve that, Hertz used more rigorous science and engineering techniques than Hughes had used. That is the key fact that makes Hertz important.
To remove all of that information makes it less convincing why Hertz is so important. It reduces his stature as a brilliant experimental scientist in the field of electromagnetics, unlike any that had come before him. The information must be restored. It has been there for several years, and to remove it now smacks of a campaign against Hughes, rather than an exposition of the achievements of Hertz. See the recent removals of information mentioning Hughes in the Invention of radio article.
Below is the deleted information in the introductory paragraph. Note that each wikilinked word and phrase further educates the reader about the principles of science and engineering, which Hertz had utilized in a "masterly" fashion to eliminate doubt about what was happening.
Heinrich Rudolf Hertz (German: [h???]; 22 February 1857 – 1 January 1894) was a German physicist who clarified and expanded James Clerk Maxwell's electromagnetic theory of light, which was first demonstrated by David Edward Hughes using non- rigorous trial and error procedures. Hertz is distinguished from Maxwell and Hughes because he was the first to conclusively prove the existence of electromagnetic waves by engineering instruments to transmit and receive radio pulses using experimental procedures that ruled out all other known wireless phenomena. [2] The scientific unit of frequency – cycles per second – was named the " hertz" in his honor. [3]
Badon ( talk) 03:09, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
I cleaned up history and more redundancy/repeating paragraphs in "Electromagnetic research" following the suggestions of User:Claudeb (still chasing it down). Added more "why" to the section and moved images. I also lost the paragraph on other experimenters since they seem to have no connection to Hertz' basic story. Maybe other editors can work them back in but it seems to belong in Invention of radio. Fountains of Bryn Mawr ( talk) 03:37, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Bizarre article. It ends by mentioning the Nazi revisionism and that his FATHER's family was Jewish. Yet it begins apparently mentioning his Jewish mother, although that entire paragraph jumps between family members referring to each as "him", "he" or "Hertz" making it impossible to tell which family member: "Early years Hertz was born in Hamburg, then a sovereign state of the German Confederation, into a prosperous and cultured Hanseatic family. His father, Gustav Ferdinand Hertz, was a writer and later a senator. His (Heinrich's or Gustov's?)mother was the former Anna Elisabeth Pfefferkorn (Jewish). His (?) paternal grandfather David Wolff Hertz (1757–1822), fourth son of Benjamin Wolff Hertz, moved to Hamburg in 1793 where he made his living as a jeweller. He (?) and his (?) wife Schöne Hertz (1760–1834) were buried in the former Jewish cemetery in Ottensen. Their first son Wolff Hertz (1790–1859), was chairman of the Jewish community. His (?!) brother Hertz Hertz(!-confuse us more-Who's on first?) (1797–1862) was a respected businessman. He (?) was married to Betty Oppenheim, the daughter of the banker Salomon Oppenheim, from Cologne. Hertz (!?-which one? Is this a first name or last name?) converted from Judaism to Christianity and took the name Heinrich David Hertz.[3] While studying at the Gelehrtenschule des Johanneums in Hamburg, he showed an aptitude for sciences as well as languages, learning Arabic and Sanskrit. He studied sciences and engineering in the German cities of Dresden, Munich and Berlin, where he studied under Gustav R. Kirchhoff and Hermann von Helmholtz."
Here are some sources that would prove it: 1. http://chem.ch.huji.ac.il/history/hertz.htm 2. http://www1.uni-hamburg.de/rz3a035//hertz.html 3. http://www.jinfo.org/Physicists.html 4. http://www.mlahanas.de/Physics/Bios/HeinrichRudolfHertz.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.125.165.222 ( talk) 17:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
But we are talking only about his ethnicity. It seems that you don't understand that jewish is an ethnicity and judaism is a religion, than even if the family converted he remains jewish by race, because thats something you are been born with and can't change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.125.165.222 ( talk) 19:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Of course we do, and i can show you plenty of examples if you want.77.125.165.222 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.125.165.222 ( talk) 21:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
3rd Opinion Personally I think that, depending on when he converted to Christianity, he should not be added to the Jewish category. If he was only briefly Jewish and converted fairly early on in life he probably shouldn't be added, however if he waited until he was middle aged or so I think he should be added. If he converted early on, I think instead of being added to the Jewish category I think he should be added to a category of people of Jewish decent if one exists. This subject is apparently the subject of much debate all over the Jewish community (see the article Who is a Jew?), so it is not surprising that its difficult for people to agree here. -- Nn123645 ( talk) 20:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
All right, than if you insist for the time being i won't categorize him, buts if its fine with you i would just mention his religion change in the article.77.125.165.222 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.125.165.222 ( talk) 10:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps one of our more interested editors was mistaken to ask my opinion, but here it is anyway. Seems to me, the precedents of Felix Mendelsohn and Benjamin Disraeli apply, despite differences in details of sectarian and ethnic affiliation. Analogies to 20th century figures are less relevant. The present bio subject was Jewish by paternal ancestry, Catholic by upbringing, and whatever his opinions on religious questions may have been, they are not why people in later centuries are interested in him. The text should mention both his ethnic and his religious affiliation very briefly, and he should be included in the relevant sectarian and ethnic scientist categories. If we're voting, then that's my vote, but I don't have a lot more to say about the matter. Jim.henderson ( talk) 16:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
The German article, shorter anyway, does not mention any Jewish aspect. Besides, the web pages given at the top here pretty much reference each other. One is taken from an older version of en-Wiki itself, the page at uni-hamburg.de/rz3a035//hertz.html is surely a private user page, yet jinfo.org uses it as a reference. Folks, please respect
WP:V and
WP:RS, use proper sources, biographies written by historians, starting e.g. with recent Google Books
[10]
or Scholar
[11]
After 1933, the Nazis tried to get rid of many kinds of people, communists and social democrats being the first targets. One strategy was to simply call somebody Jewish, and
Gustav Ludwig Hertz was ousted this way, despite colleagues voicing their opinion, see e.g. Physics and National Socialism: An Anthology of Primary Sources, By Klaus Hentschel
[12]
The Who's Who in Jewish History, By Joan Comay
[13]
barely mentions Heinrich, only repeating the Gustav L. H. case. So, mention one or two sentences that can be properly sourced, but don't copy speculations from dubious web pages, where anybody can write anything.
These seem to be reputable recent sources:
-- Matthead DisOuß 17:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I say yes to the suggested edit, so for the time being i will keep on looking for different sources to prove the point, that despite the comment above his father was jewish and his mother was not, but about the nazis removing his portrait in hamburg he had nothing to do with communism or socalism, and the october Bolshevic revolution was 24 years after he died, so it was only because of his backround. User:zivb2007 —Preceding comment was added at 17:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I think we should mention his parents's backround in "early years" and the remove of the portrait in "nazi revisionism".What do you people say?
talk —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Zivb2007 (
talk •
contribs)
00:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
What about sub-categories of Jews? Orthodox, Conservative, Jews who converted, etc? RMFan1 ( talk) 16:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Excuse me, but this ain't far away from dumb or childish (depending on the way the claimant admits their age). How about writing which salad he prefered, or the circumference for his waist? I'm sure such information would help for a true fanship of Hertz's, such as a separate wiki site or a H. Hertz forum. I really appreciate the fact that Jews look after Jews with so much care, and that a bunch of encyclopedic sites about Jews around the world exist, but this is way too much for a general article. Wikipedia is not the right place to write any statement just because it was already stated somewhere else. ( Impy4ever ( talk) 22:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC))
Have a look turkish talk art From English article "In 1892, an infection was diagnosed (after a bout of severe migraines) and Hertz underwent some operations to correct the illness. He died of Wegener's granulomatosis at the age of 36 in Bonn, Germany in 1894, and was buried in Ohlsdorf, Hamburg at the Jewish cemetery.[6]
Hertz's wife, Elizabeth Hertz (maiden name: Elizabeth Doll), did not remarry. Heinrich Hertz left two daughters, Joanna and Mathilde. Subsequently, all three women left Germany in the 1930s and went to England, after the rise of Adolf Hitler. Charles Susskind interviewed Mathilde Hertz in the 1960s and he later published a book on Heinrich Hertz. Heinrich Hertz's daughters never married and he does not have any descendants, according to the book by Susskind."
22.02.2012 Google's doodle is Rudolf Hertz as google did before, most of the doodle character's root is Jewish. Did you also notice that ? Why google do that ,Albert Einstein and others(showmen,artist etc.). Some people pay for that to google or google do that for what? I really wonder. why? As if there is a deep operation.' Davutgurbuz 08:57, 22 Şubat 2012 (UTC)
You discuss Hertz Jewish family background which seems to be correctly described, although I am not yet sure who in the family converted to a Christian faith. Father? Son? Or maybe a grandfather? However there is another serious mistake in the presentation: It says that Hertz was Lutheran which would be normal for someone from a Hanseatic family. Why do you write that his father converted to Catholicism? What is the source? This makes no sense at all. It implies three religions in the family: Father Catholic with a Jewish history and son Lutheran - as the majority in Hamburg. This would be extremely unusual. My guess is that the father might have converted to Protestantism (that is he became Lutheran) rather than to Catholicism in order to have the same religion as his wife and bring up the children with a common faith. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.212.128.130 ( talk) 14:40, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
This must be said. In Fact. Jews stays Jews. Whatever the Religion is. Heinrich Hertz came from jewish People and this is the Point. And also many others, Albert Einstein, Paul Ehrlich and many more! The Germans think since World War II. All inteligent Jews were German. But this is wrong. Since World War II no more! Germans killed Jews in WW2. Over 8 Million in Europe. Over 6 Million is fact and over 2 Milion are missing. Also was the german Martin Luther (1483 – 1546) a Jews Hater. He wrote Books like "On the Jews and Their Lies".
Unless someone intend to scream loudly I will try to remove the links to his Jewish heritage. The way the text reads at the moment it seems like pro-jews try fishing for anything resembling a Jew among successful individuals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.199.19.3 ( talk) 11:34, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Hey, I'm either missing something or there's a mistake in the Nazi revisionism section - the Nazis didn't came into power until 1933 by which time Hertz would have been dead for well over 30 years. Bonteburg ( talk) 11:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonteburg ( talk • contribs) 11:52, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
The reference is to a picture in the town hall in Hamburg which was removed by the Nazis. It was unfortunately very common that they investigated the background of historically important persons and then censored all people that were identified as being Jewish according to the Nazi definition. That included people that were no longer alive, but could be some sort of role model. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.212.128.130 ( talk) 14:44, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm surprised the article does not mention his grave health problems regarding his jaw. He suffered from some sort of bone malignant condition that gave him excruciating pain all his life. Had al his teeth removed to no avail. You can notice this in his pictures: his jaw doesn't look right if you look closely.
This link comments more on his health:
http://www-history.mcs.st-and.ac.uk/Biographies/Hertz_Heinrich.html
I don't think this caused his death though as Granulomatosis mentioned as cause of death seems to be unrelated but I am not an expert. I just think that Hertz' health problems should be better discussed in the main article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertoff ( talk • contribs) 01:56, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Heinrich Hertz. Please take a moment to review
my edit. You may add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 23:20, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
I have not found any work critical to Hertz's work. It seems to me that Hertz was under the influence of Maxwell's theory and purposefully interpreted his experiments to fit, and give false support, to Maxwell's theory. If the editor of Wikipedia's article on Heinrich Hertz deems useful, I would invite him to read this article ( http://vixra.org/pdf/1511.0065v1.pdf ) in which it is shown that Hertz was not correct to claim that he detected the electric and the magnetic components of the radio wave produced in his experiments - and include a reference to this in the Wikipedia article. The main point is: Hertz detected only magnetic waves through electromagnetic induction occurring in his circular wire detector and no reason can be given for believing that he was detecting any electric wave. The main argument is: Hertz held his detector vertically at all times but used a double standard when interpreting the cause of the sparks at the gap of his detector: on one hand he used electromagnetic induction (for the magnetic component, dotted wave in his diagram), but on the other hand claimed electric field (for the electric component, full line in his diagram). Hertz's fallacy is: when you hold the detector vertically, in both situations you get electromagnetic induction no matter how you orient the gap of the detector - in that position the effect of electromagnetic induction is maximum (Hertz himself said the magnetic field lines are perpendicular to the plane of the detector in the vertical position he used in his experiments). Please excuse me if this discussion was not allowed here, I only thought this might be relevant. ( Idnwiki ( talk) 16:59, 12 November 2015 (UTC)Ionel DINU Idnwiki ( talk) 16:59, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
"I will also argue that the theoretical claim that radio waves are composed of oscillating electric and magnetic fields has never been verified by experiment – the truth is that Hertz interpreted his experiments to agree with Maxwell’s theory."