This page 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. |
The paragraph :"Case against Marconi" in the entry "Invention of Radio" states that "However, he might have received a transatlantic signal at short wave frequencies (HF) because the early spark transmitters were only broadly tuned, and the Poldhu transmitter may have radiated sufficient energy in that part of the spectrum for a transatlantic transmission, if Marconi was using an untuned receiver when he claimed to have received the transatlantic signal at Newfoundland in 1901. When he was using a tuned receiver aboard the SS Philadelphia....".
It would be more accurate to say:".....spectrum for a transatlantic transmission. This possibility is suggested by the fact that Marconi was using an untuned receiver (which could have received short wave frequencies) when he claimed to have received the transatlantic signal at Newfoundland, whereas when he used a tuned receiver aboard the SS Philadelphia in 1902....."
I.e., Marconi actually did use an untuned receiver for the claimed reception of the transatlantic signal, according to the diary of his assistant Kemp, but the suggestion that sufficient energy was radiated by the Poldhu transmitter at short wave frequencies to account for the claimed success in 1901 is just speculative. Incidentally, the mercury drop coherer that he used as a detector when he made the claimed reception was of the type used by Jagadish Chandra Bose in his pioneering research on radio waves generated at centimetre wavelengths by a spark source. Credit for the invention of this detector has been the source of much discussion. - Henry Bradford.
142.177.155.247 17:28, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
"Tesla did more to excite interest and create an intelligent understanding [of radio frequencies] than anyone else. ... [Tesla was] a man who we are now compelled in the the light of modern experience and knowledge, to admit was a prophet ... [He] was so far ahead of his time the best of us then mistook him for a dreamer." John Stone Stone, "Minutes of the Annual Meeting of the AIEE", May 18, 1917 – at the presentation of the Edison Medal to Nikola Tesla 134.193.168.250 17:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
This sentence is questionable "Marconi's supporters likely dispute the relevancy of these demonstrations". [citation needed] 134.193.168.250 17:57, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
I think this article either should be renamed to "Marconi vs. Tesla" or undergo a significant clean up. Issues to be resolved:
Therefore I am going to put the POV-template. -- Goldie (tell me) 14:51, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Hertz UHF experiments were not "good" for the advancement of early radio. Tesla and Marconi had much better equiptment for early radio. A Comparison of the Tesla and Marconi Low-Frequency Wireless Systems is available. J. D. Redding 17:39, 18 May 2006 (UTC) [PS., if I recall correctly, Hertz did not have the foresight to envisage radio as an application from his experiments. But I'd have to look around for a reference.]
Statements like "Hertz UHF experiments were not "good" for the advancement of early radio " or "Tesla and Marconi had much better equiptment for early radio" are really inappropriate for scientific-related article of any encyclopaedia. And sentences about Marconi's priority in invention of radio which are based only on 'statements of his proponents' just are not serious.There are not written evidences that Marconi built his devices for wireless communication in 1894. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sea diver ( talk • contribs)
Henry and Faraday discovered induction in the early 1830's, and Henry discovered self induction. He did a number of experiments wherein an impulse was transmitted from a coil to a distant coil. This date, Dec 1840, comes from "Famous First Facts" by Joseph Kane et al, 5th ed, 1997, p458. In "Joseph Henry" by Thomas Coulson, Princeton University Press, Princeton NY 1950, I could not find that specific reference, but Coulson on p 141 quotes Henry's Scientific Writings, Vol I, p203 with a similar experiment, circa 1840, in which a 1" spark in a coil of wire in the upper room induced a current in a coil 30 feet away sufficiently strong to magnetize a needle. On p 142, Coulson describes an experiment in which Henry in the early 1840's discharged Leyden jars (capacitors) through a long wire, and induced current sufficient to magnetize a needle in a parallel wire about 220 feet away. Henry postulated that the electromagnetic disturbance from a spark was similar to light, "propagated wave fashion"and proved that a capacitative discharge is a diminishing oscillation. Coulson says p143 ""..he (Henry) was not only making experiments with radio waves, but he was also beginning to formulate qualitatively some crude ideas of an electrical ether which transmitted disturbances to great distances." p146: Marconi, at a dinner to honor his claim of translantic radio reception in 1902 said "I have built very largely upon the work of others, and before concluding I would like to mention a few names-Clerk Maxwell, Lord Kelvin, Professor Henry, and Professor Hertz." (Coulson, p146). Thus I feel it is appropriate that I have added a short mention of Henry as a pioneer in early radio research. Edison 23:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Very good. 204.56.7.1 18:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC) (ps., gonna do some formatting on it though)
Does anyone know what the hell this page http://www.angelfire.com/co/pscst/radio.html is referring to @ the 1879 reference? 204.56.7.1 19:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Someone please make a list so people can work on it. 134.193.94.173
The current title, History of radio (more information) is not appropriate because the parenthetic expression does not describe its content. Please use a title that is short but more descriptive. -- Blainster 18:35, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
The invention of radio is part of the history of radio, and radio seems to have been invented independently at least twice; I see no good way to separate the two subjects. Anthony Appleyard 06:03, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
The order of the four players mentioned in this article at the moment should be Hertz, Tesla, Marconi, Bose. The dates in each of the sections reflect this clearly. The order of participants Wireless radio beginnings section of History of Radio is closer to what it should be (with Hertz at the top). The timeline of the citations supports this order, it isn't a question of (disputed) facts. Even the opening section of the Marconi section mentions Hertz.
Also, there used to be a graphic timeline (from the US Patent Office data) in this article that possibly should be restored. It only highlights Tesla/Marconi, but shows prior events involving neither:
Finally, to further reduce the size of the History of Radio article, the section Wireless radio beginnings from there should be completely removed and made a link to this page with anything worth preserving put here (like the Lodge and Popov sections in particular, probably Ward and Loomis as well).
Comments?
I see nothing in this section that actually is a case against Tesla. Yes, it talks about his failure to build his tower, which was mainly an energy transmission project, not a radio transmission one, but nothing regarding prior invention. Can this be clarified? Sparkhead 03:36, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
That was "plain language". I'm including the phrase in the title for consistency, and avoid reuse of the word "radio" repeatedly. If you have another proposal, put it here and we can hash thru the wording. Thanks Sparkhead 12:59, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
A is clearer to me. A man is one man, and a party is a booze-up or a political party, to most people. I see no harm is having the word "radio" 3 times rather than 2 times: elegant variation is confusing and annoying and unnecessary and often an enemy of clear communication. Anthony Appleyard 15:14, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
We have the main article, History of radio. This article (now titled " Invention of radio") must focus on Tesla/Marconi radio patent controversy and all the rest removed/moved into " History of radio", since it is content forking, inadmissible in encyclopedia.
Correspondingly, the article must be renamed. I would suggest Radio patent controversy. Any better ideas? `' mikka (t) 05:41, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Maxwell theoretical physical research which correctly predicted the existence of electromagnetic waves BUT had NO idea of practical applications ... Hertz experimental created waves in a controlled manner but again had NO idea of practical applications ...
Tesla was the 1st to practically apply theory into a useful form ... the intro is dubious, inaccurate, and biased. 172.150.116.38 04:44, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
What is this dubious comment ...
This seem like biased and POV pushing at it's finest. Seems like a swipe by a Marconi supporter than NPOV research of facts! In the least, it's from a ivory tower guardsman that has a point to make. 172.150.116.38 05:09, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Clean up and main page the timeline.
J. D. Redding 18:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm having trouble comprehending this sentence:
"Developments, parallel to theses individuals and after, are greater or lesser engineering triumph lead to the 'inventions of radio': the objects, processes, or techniques to transceve information, which are certainly minor developments in the field."
I'm pretty sure "theses" is supposed to be "these" (referring to the individuals, rather than being the plural form of the word "thesis").
As for "are greater or lesser engineering triumph", the noun is singular (triumph) where as the verb indicates a plural (are).
As for "lesser...triumph" and "minor developments", radio is a major development (as far as I'm aware). The significance of it should not be downplayed, especially not in the introduction to an article on the topic.
And "transceve" isn't a real word - "transceiver" is a blending of the words "transmit" and receive", but there exists no verb form of the word that I'm aware of.
Here's what I think is trying to be communicated: (1) The subject of the sentence is "developments", which occurred during and after the lives of Maxwell and Hertz; (2) These "developments" are "engineering triumphs"; (3) They led to the invention of "radio"; and (4) "Radio" is defined as "processes or techniques to transmit and receive information."
Now, the question is how to communicate all of this in a coherent sentence. I propose: [These and other, later engineering triumphs led to the invention of "radio" - processes or techniques to transmit and receive information.]
Does anybody have any objections? (Agree, disagree? Comments?) Mattcaplan 21:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I thought that the article did ...
(1) describe the "developments" which occurred during and after the lives of Maxwell and Hertz;
(2) The "developments" are engineering activities;
(3) They led to the invention of "radio"; and
(4) "Radio" is defined as "processes or techniques to transmit and receive (eg., transception) information."
Maestro Maxwell and Professor Hertz had lil' to no practical applications for the tech. Inaddition, Edison (when, IIRC, Tesla was in his employ) conducted research at the same time as Hertz ... J. D. Redding 14:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
The CoP section of this article is patently NPOV. Perhaps we can work on developing this section a bit more? The Case For Marconi has one sentence that is a case for Marconi followed immediately by six sentences (the rest of the paragraph) against Marconi. Further the Case Against Tesla is a weak two paragraph "He never made it worldwide." spiel, which is irrelivant to the case of priority in entirity.
Surely on such a contraversial subject we can get far better work to represent it? 210.49.15.52 ( talk) 07:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
This page 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. |
In this article, Hughes is described as transmitting by induction but in the article on Hughes it is stated that this is not the case. Considering the distance over which he transmitted, I think that the method was substantially EM waves (although there is no absolute distinction)and that the section should be amended accordingly. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 21:01, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Having looked at the Edison patent, it seems to me to be something of a bluff. It gives no clear description of how the invention works and seems to use a lot of technical words more or less randomly with no indication that he understands what they mean. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 21:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
All radio systems use electromagnetic waves. These are transverse only and are described by Maxwell's equations. Any invention which purports to be radio but does no use EM waves is simply not radio. Such devices do not work and never have done.
Whether inventors of devices which were intended to work by some other means than EM waves but did, in fact, work by EM waves can be said to have invented radio is debatable. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 23:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I assume that the purpose of this article is to inform the reader on who was the inventor of radio. There are clearly many contenders for this title and I do not believe that it is the purpose of an encyclopedia article to actually make this decision for the reader. What it should do, however, is to give an unbiased description of each contender's claim to be the 'inventor of radio'. In doing this there are many objective issues that should be considered. In addition to items that are already present, such as timelines, I suggest we should consider:
1 What the person actually did.
Well documented and witnessed actions should take precedence over claimed actions or unconfirmed private work.
2 What their intentions were
Someone who had no intention of discovering radio transmission, but accidently did so, has a lesser claim than someone who was trying to invent radio.
Unrealized intentions for the future should carry little weight.
3 What their understanding of the subject was.
Someone who understood what they are doing and why they were doing it (in the light of the knowledge of the day) has a better claim than someone who just experimented.
4 What the person wrote
Publications in peer reviewed journals should carry greater weight than, say, newspaper articles. Patents should be considered critically both in the light of knowledge of the time and present day knowledge.
5 What the person achieved in commercial and publicity terms
I intend to try to improve the Marconi vs Tesla section to consider other contenders in the same way.
6 Whether their invention, as described, could actualy have achieved the transmission and reception of EM waves.
Inventions that might have worked, but by other means, are not radio Martin Hogbin ( talk) 18:00, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
7 Whether later work followed their lead. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 09:29, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Swampfire, you have deleted my text which comes from exactly the same page as the following text comes from: 'According to the IEEE, "the apparatus that he employed contained all the elements of spark and continuous wave that were incorporated into radio"[6]'. If you click the link it does not take you straight to the right page, you have to navigate to it. The link was inserted by the original contributor of the above text. I you do navigate to the correct page you will see the above text plus my added text shortly below. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 20:49, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
I have added this section in an attempt to give a summary of all those who have a case for the above title. Some of this is taken from the similar article 'History of Radio' but I have restricted the entrants to those who have a claim to be the first to have invented radio in some sense of the words.
It would be good to see some discussion here rather than just edit waring. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 09:20, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
I have reached the stage where Hertz has clearly demonstrated the transmission and reception of radio waves over a sort distance in a laboratory. The first question I would ask is, 'what else is there to do?' and then, 'who did it and when?'.
Bose, Popov, Testla, Marconi, Lodge all have claims, but what are they? The following have all been done: the original concept, the first actual transmission and reception, the first intentional transmission and reception, the first US patent granted for wireless telegraphy.
One claim that I would not personally consider significant is the first to recognize the potential or radio. I would consider Hertz as unusual in not recognizing the obvious potential of wireless communication. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 10:09, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
By 1888 Hertz had clearly demonstrated the transmission and reception of radio waves.
In 1893, at St. Louis, Missouri, Tesla gave a public demonstration of "wireless" radio communication. Does anyone know what the distance was and whether a message of any kind was sent and, if so, what it was?
On 19 August 1994 Lodge sent a wireless message by Morse code. Was this the first actual message sent by radio?
In 1894 Bose gave a public demonstration in which he ignited gunpowder. In 1895 (reported 1896) he sent a signal nearly a mile. Was that the longest distance so far?
In 1895 Popov sent a signal 600 yds.
Some time between 1896 and 1897 Tesla detected CW transmissions at 50kHz up to 30 miles. Does anyone know: The exact date that he achieved this range? How he detected CW transmissions? What kind of antennae he used for 50kHz? Who witnessed this?
By May 1897, Marconi had sent signals over land and sea over 6km
In 1898 Popov could send signals 7-9 km
In 1899 Popov could send signals 30 miles
In 1904 Marconi set up a commercial radio service. Was this the first? 86.132.189.39 ( talk) 20:41, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
In my opinion this distinction attempts to pre-judge the issue of who invented radio. Frequency of citation cannot easily be determined and varies from country to country and source to source. The distinction should be dropped. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 21:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
What exactly did Tesla transmit in 1891 and over what distance. Was the claim verified? Martin Hogbin ( talk) 21:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Read the reference! J. D. Redding 21:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
You may also be interested in :
J. D. Redding 21:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
On what basis did Tesla hold the 'rights to radio'? The first radio patent was granted to Ward. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 22:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Tesla's claims are all stated on a vague manner unlike all the other inventors. They need to be worded along the lines of confirmed transmission over x km in year yyyy or they should be deleted. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 22:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Stuck a {{ cleanup}} on this article ... will come back to clean up the edit war later ... 22:42, 4 August 2008 (UTC) {{ ugly}}
I have read the reference cited for this claim and it does not support the claim that Tesla transmitted radio waves in 1891. The lecture is principally about the lighting of arc lamps and discharge tubes. He claims to have lit gas discharge tubes remotely but no mention whatever is made of EM waves, the only method of radio communication.
The claim should be reworded to say that Tesla claimed to have caused gas discharge tube to light remotely with a high frequency (20kHz) electric field. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 17:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
20kHz. longwave radio band. Nuff said. J. D. Redding 18:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
VLF is not longwave it is only used for specialist communications at very low data rates. What Tesla did was simply to capacitively couple his discharge tubes to a 20 kHz supply. No EM waves were involved and none were even claimed to be involved. It cannot, by any stretch of the imagination be called a radio transmission. But why argue, why not simply state exactly what Tesla did, that is perfectly fair to all. Why not just put in the 'for' section, 'Tesla claimed to have lit gas discharge tubes remotely with a 20 kHz supply'? Martin Hogbin ( talk) 21:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
In order to establish priority over Bose for the first confirmed radio transmission over a significant distance, we need to produce evidence that Tesla did this first. Note that we need to show that the transmission used radio waves and was verified by an independent observer, as was the case with Bose. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 17:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
No. We need a reliable reference to cite it. Sincerely, J. D. Redding 18:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
You removed my statement that Bose was the first to transmit over a significant distance. Bose is well documented to have transmitted over 75 feet. To challenge the fact that he was the first you must cite a reliable reference that shows that Tesla (or somebody else) did this earlier. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 21:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
I have moved Marconi's 1895 transmissions into the 'for' section, where they logically belong. Whether or not they were bettered by someone else they are an achievement of Marconi, not a failure. The date is there for all to see. The logical way to show that this was not a great achievement is to put the earlier date of someone else in their for section. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 21:53, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
I would like to rewrite Tesla's 'For' section of the table to summarize his achievements with dates and whether confirmed or not but I would like to do this after some discussion of the subject. Here is what I have taken from the article and how I propose to summarize it:
Section beginning - Around July 1891, he established his New York laboratory...
Summary - In 1891 Tesla lit gas discharge tubes using without the use of wires.
Section beginning - Later, a variety of Tesla's radio frequency systems were demonstrated...
Summary - Referring to a demonstration of his lighting equipment in 1893 the IEE said "the apparatus that he employed contained all the elements of spark and continuous wave that were incorporated into radio transmitters before the advent of the vacuum tube"
Section beginning - After 1892, Tesla received wireless signals ...
Summary - In 1895 Tesla was ready to transmit a signal 50 miles but fire destroyed his lab
Section Beginning - his exhibition of a radio-guided...
Summary - In 1898 Tesla demonstrated a radio controlled boat in Madison Square Garden
Section about Tesla's patents
Summary - 1990 Tesla was granted two parents for 'Apparatus for Transmission of Electrical Energy' Martin Hogbin ( talk) 18:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
The summaries of prospective 'inventors of radio' that I have added so far concentrate on specific achievements of the various contenders, particularly instances of radio transmission and reception. I think that we all agree that there are other, more general, ways in which a person may contribute to the 'invention' of radio. For example Bose and Tesla contributed the innovation of some of the components used in radio and Marconi, Popov, and Tesla were concerned with the commercial application of radio. Others contributed to the popularization and public awareness of radio.
I would like to add short (one sentence) summaries of more general achievements to the table. Any suggestions? 86.133.176.101 ( talk) 11:23, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
The quotation below [my capitals] taken directly from the IEEE source quoted clearly refers to 1893. The item in the summary should be changed to show this.
"In 1893 the Chicago World Columbian Exposition was lighted by means of Tesla's system and work was begun on the installation of power machinery at Niagara Falls. In a lecture-demonstration given in St. Louis IN THE SAME YEAR -two years before Marconi's first experiments-Tesla also predicted wireless communication; the apparatus that he employed contained all the elements of spark and continuous wave that were incorporated into radio transmitters before the advent of the vacuum tube".
Martin Hogbin (
talk) 17:24, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
I was hoping to have a summary table showing very short statements of the achievements of each inventor together with date and confirmed/unconfirmed status. In the case of Tesla, the table has been expanded to add a lot of unnecessary detail, much of which is duplication. I suggest that the place for this kind of detail is in the body of the text above. To add detail to one 'inventor' only gives a biased view and to do it to all defeats the object of having a summary table.
How about some discussion? Martin Hogbin ( talk) 19:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
These are necessary details. They are short statements.
The detail is in the body of the text above, also ... but mentioned briefly because this outlines the pros and cons!
Add detail to all 'inventors' to give a balanced view. Keep them short statements!
The object of having a summary table is to outline who did what. This is accomplished with the table I would suppose.
J. D. Redding 19:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
I see that most of the added material has now been put as footnotes, this is much better in my opinion, although it would be nice to have a way to distinguish between footnotes (extra detail in the article to explain and support the main text) and citations (of external documents). Martin Hogbin ( talk) 20:24, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Moved from main article space ... J. D. Redding 18:33, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
This statement is pure nonsense. Radio receivers usually have more that two tuned circuits but it is quite possible to build one with just one tuned circuit or even none. Of course there may have been some technical advantages in some cases to having two tuned circuits in certain early radio designs but it is not, and never has been, a requirement of a radio communication system. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 15:02, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
I have just deleted the statement again because (apart from in the context of the Marconi US patent dispute) it is just plain wrong, and obviously so. Yo can see designs for receivers with just one tuned circuit in many places. Many receivers have more. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 15:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
We've got Radio. We've got Invention of radio. We've got Timeline of radio. And we've got History of radio. Could we merge "invention" and 'timeline" into "history", and truncate the history part of the "radio" article? -- Wtshymanski ( talk) 23:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
The "Invention of radio" is a well-known concept in history. J. D. Redding 14:10, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
This article is specifically about the invention of radio. It should therefore concentrate on those who have some sort of a claim to be the inventor of radio (radio seems to have a lot of fathers). De Forest was, of course, an important contributor to the development of radio but there is no way that he could ever be described as the inventor of radio. All the others in the table have some claim to the title; he does not and should be removed, otherwise the article becomes a rehash of History of radio. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 17:16, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
This article would be more useful if it was focussed on the patent dispute between the Marconi company and the US Government. Anyone can look at the Supreme Court decision ( see http://supreme.justia.com/us/320/1/case.html ) and see that it overturns Claim 16 of one of Marconi's patents. Also please read the dissenting opinions. The case is about the Marconi company not getting paid by the US government for use of some of the Marconi company's patents during WWI. Tesla barely gets mentioned - John Stone Stone's system gets more discussion, and even that is acknowledged not to be identical to Marconi's patent. The Marconi patent was valid for years, and by the time of the 1943 Supreme Court decision the patent would have expired anyway.
Some editors apparently believe the transistor invention is relevant to the history of radio. Why? Radio was big business and fully practical long before 1948. Certainly invention of the transistor has no relevance to the priority disputes of *two generations* before.
Wikipedia articles should be concise - this one rambles all the way from Hertz to the Supreme Court and gives a potted Tesla mini-biography en-route. All of this is redundant - no-one not involved in editing this mess will ever *read* the darn thing through and understand the issue. The Popov, Lodge,etc. claims are already described in History of radio and are redundant here. "Longitudinal waves" are not radio, whatever else they are. Conduction, induction, capacitive coupling are also not radio. The article should stick to its title subject. -- Wtshymanski ( talk) 14:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps it might be a good idea to discuss what people think is the purpose of this article. If we cannot agree on a purpose then the article should be deleted, as we already have at least two articles on radio and its history.
I believe that it should address the question, 'Who invented radio?' The article should list possible contenders for the title and give concise and balanced reasons as to why they are such. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 17:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
I do not entirely disagree with that
Wtshymanski; the history of the subject is well covered elsewhere. On the other hand, 'Who invented radio?' must be a commonly asked question which clearly cannot be answered with a single name. An article which gives balanced information on all contenders, so that people can make up their own minds, might be worthwhile. What is not worth having, in my opinion, is a Marconi vs Tesla article.
Martin Hogbin (
talk) 18:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Where is the evidence of independent confirmation that Tesla transmitted radio waves before 1898? If this is not provided, his date of first transmission must be 1898. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 21:26, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Much of his lectures and demonstrations were public. Do you know about the 1893 demonstration? Any of the other tech demonstrations in that time? Do you know what a demonstration is?!?! Have you seen the image of him standing on the platform in from of the London society? Have read the lectures done in America and in Europe? Do you know anything realy about his radio work? Also, the references and citations that are provided in the article give information. 19:52, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Of course I know about the 1893 demonstration, I could hardly not, but I am asking about radio transmissions. In his demonstrations he lit gas discharge tubes by capacitive coupling or by conduction through his own body. Where is the evidence that he sent radio waves, or indeed anything, more than a few feet? Martin Hogbin ( talk) 20:09, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
You seem to be completely misunderstanding the question. Marconi, for example, has clear examples of radio transmissions that were observed by independent parties. He was witnessed to have transmitted over 6 km in March and May 1897. There are no equivalent verified transmissions by Tesla, certainly nothing more than a few feet by capacitive coupling. Wikipedia policy is that claims must be verifiable. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 21:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
J. D. Redding 21:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Do any of these books show where Tesla was witnessed to have transmitted over any significant distance? Martin Hogbin ( talk) 21:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
It gets worse and worse...we also have an article Wireless. Could someone please tell me what the purpose of all these overlapping articles is?
I've quickly looked at the Tesla patents and find that the he repeatedly claims his devices work by conduction through the air, not by propagation of electromagnetic waves. Whatever Tesla was doing, it wasn't radio. The long Tesla section in this article was misleading...Tesla wasn't working on radio, but on power transfer (his patent description shows light bulbs and motors hung off his "receiver" coil!). Tesla apparently believed that any Hertzian emissions from Tesla's apparatus was only a loss mechanism and of no value for communications. In this Tesla was mistaken since his conduction principle has never produced usable results and the air is thick with Hertzian waves making money for their users.
Patent validity is a very shaky basis for assigning priority; would anyone be happy if we said Tesla invented radio from 1893 to 1898, then Lodge and Stone invented it, then from 1902 through 1943 Marconi invented it, then from 1943 to pick a date Tesla invented it again? Seems unsatisfactory, and wrong.
Someone secure in his facts need not resort to Ad hominem attacks.
Reddi, please define for us what radio is so we can figure out what you want. Right now this is like arguing about the habits and nature of the heffalump. Arguments are often a sign of climbing too high on the ladder of semantic abstraction - please point at what you mean when you say "Tesla invented THIS".
The article would be more interesting if it talked about why some people believe Tesla invented radio, and if the Supreme Court was correct in invalidating one of Marconi's patents.
The article would be more accurate as it reads now if it was titled "Tesla invented radio" since this would accurately reflect its current point of view. -- Wtshymanski ( talk) 13:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
This page 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. |
The paragraph :"Case against Marconi" in the entry "Invention of Radio" states that "However, he might have received a transatlantic signal at short wave frequencies (HF) because the early spark transmitters were only broadly tuned, and the Poldhu transmitter may have radiated sufficient energy in that part of the spectrum for a transatlantic transmission, if Marconi was using an untuned receiver when he claimed to have received the transatlantic signal at Newfoundland in 1901. When he was using a tuned receiver aboard the SS Philadelphia....".
It would be more accurate to say:".....spectrum for a transatlantic transmission. This possibility is suggested by the fact that Marconi was using an untuned receiver (which could have received short wave frequencies) when he claimed to have received the transatlantic signal at Newfoundland, whereas when he used a tuned receiver aboard the SS Philadelphia in 1902....."
I.e., Marconi actually did use an untuned receiver for the claimed reception of the transatlantic signal, according to the diary of his assistant Kemp, but the suggestion that sufficient energy was radiated by the Poldhu transmitter at short wave frequencies to account for the claimed success in 1901 is just speculative. Incidentally, the mercury drop coherer that he used as a detector when he made the claimed reception was of the type used by Jagadish Chandra Bose in his pioneering research on radio waves generated at centimetre wavelengths by a spark source. Credit for the invention of this detector has been the source of much discussion. - Henry Bradford.
142.177.155.247 17:28, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
"Tesla did more to excite interest and create an intelligent understanding [of radio frequencies] than anyone else. ... [Tesla was] a man who we are now compelled in the the light of modern experience and knowledge, to admit was a prophet ... [He] was so far ahead of his time the best of us then mistook him for a dreamer." John Stone Stone, "Minutes of the Annual Meeting of the AIEE", May 18, 1917 – at the presentation of the Edison Medal to Nikola Tesla 134.193.168.250 17:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
This sentence is questionable "Marconi's supporters likely dispute the relevancy of these demonstrations". [citation needed] 134.193.168.250 17:57, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
I think this article either should be renamed to "Marconi vs. Tesla" or undergo a significant clean up. Issues to be resolved:
Therefore I am going to put the POV-template. -- Goldie (tell me) 14:51, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Hertz UHF experiments were not "good" for the advancement of early radio. Tesla and Marconi had much better equiptment for early radio. A Comparison of the Tesla and Marconi Low-Frequency Wireless Systems is available. J. D. Redding 17:39, 18 May 2006 (UTC) [PS., if I recall correctly, Hertz did not have the foresight to envisage radio as an application from his experiments. But I'd have to look around for a reference.]
Statements like "Hertz UHF experiments were not "good" for the advancement of early radio " or "Tesla and Marconi had much better equiptment for early radio" are really inappropriate for scientific-related article of any encyclopaedia. And sentences about Marconi's priority in invention of radio which are based only on 'statements of his proponents' just are not serious.There are not written evidences that Marconi built his devices for wireless communication in 1894. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sea diver ( talk • contribs)
Henry and Faraday discovered induction in the early 1830's, and Henry discovered self induction. He did a number of experiments wherein an impulse was transmitted from a coil to a distant coil. This date, Dec 1840, comes from "Famous First Facts" by Joseph Kane et al, 5th ed, 1997, p458. In "Joseph Henry" by Thomas Coulson, Princeton University Press, Princeton NY 1950, I could not find that specific reference, but Coulson on p 141 quotes Henry's Scientific Writings, Vol I, p203 with a similar experiment, circa 1840, in which a 1" spark in a coil of wire in the upper room induced a current in a coil 30 feet away sufficiently strong to magnetize a needle. On p 142, Coulson describes an experiment in which Henry in the early 1840's discharged Leyden jars (capacitors) through a long wire, and induced current sufficient to magnetize a needle in a parallel wire about 220 feet away. Henry postulated that the electromagnetic disturbance from a spark was similar to light, "propagated wave fashion"and proved that a capacitative discharge is a diminishing oscillation. Coulson says p143 ""..he (Henry) was not only making experiments with radio waves, but he was also beginning to formulate qualitatively some crude ideas of an electrical ether which transmitted disturbances to great distances." p146: Marconi, at a dinner to honor his claim of translantic radio reception in 1902 said "I have built very largely upon the work of others, and before concluding I would like to mention a few names-Clerk Maxwell, Lord Kelvin, Professor Henry, and Professor Hertz." (Coulson, p146). Thus I feel it is appropriate that I have added a short mention of Henry as a pioneer in early radio research. Edison 23:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Very good. 204.56.7.1 18:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC) (ps., gonna do some formatting on it though)
Does anyone know what the hell this page http://www.angelfire.com/co/pscst/radio.html is referring to @ the 1879 reference? 204.56.7.1 19:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Someone please make a list so people can work on it. 134.193.94.173
The current title, History of radio (more information) is not appropriate because the parenthetic expression does not describe its content. Please use a title that is short but more descriptive. -- Blainster 18:35, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
The invention of radio is part of the history of radio, and radio seems to have been invented independently at least twice; I see no good way to separate the two subjects. Anthony Appleyard 06:03, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
The order of the four players mentioned in this article at the moment should be Hertz, Tesla, Marconi, Bose. The dates in each of the sections reflect this clearly. The order of participants Wireless radio beginnings section of History of Radio is closer to what it should be (with Hertz at the top). The timeline of the citations supports this order, it isn't a question of (disputed) facts. Even the opening section of the Marconi section mentions Hertz.
Also, there used to be a graphic timeline (from the US Patent Office data) in this article that possibly should be restored. It only highlights Tesla/Marconi, but shows prior events involving neither:
Finally, to further reduce the size of the History of Radio article, the section Wireless radio beginnings from there should be completely removed and made a link to this page with anything worth preserving put here (like the Lodge and Popov sections in particular, probably Ward and Loomis as well).
Comments?
I see nothing in this section that actually is a case against Tesla. Yes, it talks about his failure to build his tower, which was mainly an energy transmission project, not a radio transmission one, but nothing regarding prior invention. Can this be clarified? Sparkhead 03:36, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
That was "plain language". I'm including the phrase in the title for consistency, and avoid reuse of the word "radio" repeatedly. If you have another proposal, put it here and we can hash thru the wording. Thanks Sparkhead 12:59, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
A is clearer to me. A man is one man, and a party is a booze-up or a political party, to most people. I see no harm is having the word "radio" 3 times rather than 2 times: elegant variation is confusing and annoying and unnecessary and often an enemy of clear communication. Anthony Appleyard 15:14, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
We have the main article, History of radio. This article (now titled " Invention of radio") must focus on Tesla/Marconi radio patent controversy and all the rest removed/moved into " History of radio", since it is content forking, inadmissible in encyclopedia.
Correspondingly, the article must be renamed. I would suggest Radio patent controversy. Any better ideas? `' mikka (t) 05:41, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Maxwell theoretical physical research which correctly predicted the existence of electromagnetic waves BUT had NO idea of practical applications ... Hertz experimental created waves in a controlled manner but again had NO idea of practical applications ...
Tesla was the 1st to practically apply theory into a useful form ... the intro is dubious, inaccurate, and biased. 172.150.116.38 04:44, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
What is this dubious comment ...
This seem like biased and POV pushing at it's finest. Seems like a swipe by a Marconi supporter than NPOV research of facts! In the least, it's from a ivory tower guardsman that has a point to make. 172.150.116.38 05:09, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Clean up and main page the timeline.
J. D. Redding 18:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm having trouble comprehending this sentence:
"Developments, parallel to theses individuals and after, are greater or lesser engineering triumph lead to the 'inventions of radio': the objects, processes, or techniques to transceve information, which are certainly minor developments in the field."
I'm pretty sure "theses" is supposed to be "these" (referring to the individuals, rather than being the plural form of the word "thesis").
As for "are greater or lesser engineering triumph", the noun is singular (triumph) where as the verb indicates a plural (are).
As for "lesser...triumph" and "minor developments", radio is a major development (as far as I'm aware). The significance of it should not be downplayed, especially not in the introduction to an article on the topic.
And "transceve" isn't a real word - "transceiver" is a blending of the words "transmit" and receive", but there exists no verb form of the word that I'm aware of.
Here's what I think is trying to be communicated: (1) The subject of the sentence is "developments", which occurred during and after the lives of Maxwell and Hertz; (2) These "developments" are "engineering triumphs"; (3) They led to the invention of "radio"; and (4) "Radio" is defined as "processes or techniques to transmit and receive information."
Now, the question is how to communicate all of this in a coherent sentence. I propose: [These and other, later engineering triumphs led to the invention of "radio" - processes or techniques to transmit and receive information.]
Does anybody have any objections? (Agree, disagree? Comments?) Mattcaplan 21:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I thought that the article did ...
(1) describe the "developments" which occurred during and after the lives of Maxwell and Hertz;
(2) The "developments" are engineering activities;
(3) They led to the invention of "radio"; and
(4) "Radio" is defined as "processes or techniques to transmit and receive (eg., transception) information."
Maestro Maxwell and Professor Hertz had lil' to no practical applications for the tech. Inaddition, Edison (when, IIRC, Tesla was in his employ) conducted research at the same time as Hertz ... J. D. Redding 14:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
The CoP section of this article is patently NPOV. Perhaps we can work on developing this section a bit more? The Case For Marconi has one sentence that is a case for Marconi followed immediately by six sentences (the rest of the paragraph) against Marconi. Further the Case Against Tesla is a weak two paragraph "He never made it worldwide." spiel, which is irrelivant to the case of priority in entirity.
Surely on such a contraversial subject we can get far better work to represent it? 210.49.15.52 ( talk) 07:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
This page 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. |
In this article, Hughes is described as transmitting by induction but in the article on Hughes it is stated that this is not the case. Considering the distance over which he transmitted, I think that the method was substantially EM waves (although there is no absolute distinction)and that the section should be amended accordingly. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 21:01, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Having looked at the Edison patent, it seems to me to be something of a bluff. It gives no clear description of how the invention works and seems to use a lot of technical words more or less randomly with no indication that he understands what they mean. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 21:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
All radio systems use electromagnetic waves. These are transverse only and are described by Maxwell's equations. Any invention which purports to be radio but does no use EM waves is simply not radio. Such devices do not work and never have done.
Whether inventors of devices which were intended to work by some other means than EM waves but did, in fact, work by EM waves can be said to have invented radio is debatable. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 23:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I assume that the purpose of this article is to inform the reader on who was the inventor of radio. There are clearly many contenders for this title and I do not believe that it is the purpose of an encyclopedia article to actually make this decision for the reader. What it should do, however, is to give an unbiased description of each contender's claim to be the 'inventor of radio'. In doing this there are many objective issues that should be considered. In addition to items that are already present, such as timelines, I suggest we should consider:
1 What the person actually did.
Well documented and witnessed actions should take precedence over claimed actions or unconfirmed private work.
2 What their intentions were
Someone who had no intention of discovering radio transmission, but accidently did so, has a lesser claim than someone who was trying to invent radio.
Unrealized intentions for the future should carry little weight.
3 What their understanding of the subject was.
Someone who understood what they are doing and why they were doing it (in the light of the knowledge of the day) has a better claim than someone who just experimented.
4 What the person wrote
Publications in peer reviewed journals should carry greater weight than, say, newspaper articles. Patents should be considered critically both in the light of knowledge of the time and present day knowledge.
5 What the person achieved in commercial and publicity terms
I intend to try to improve the Marconi vs Tesla section to consider other contenders in the same way.
6 Whether their invention, as described, could actualy have achieved the transmission and reception of EM waves.
Inventions that might have worked, but by other means, are not radio Martin Hogbin ( talk) 18:00, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
7 Whether later work followed their lead. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 09:29, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Swampfire, you have deleted my text which comes from exactly the same page as the following text comes from: 'According to the IEEE, "the apparatus that he employed contained all the elements of spark and continuous wave that were incorporated into radio"[6]'. If you click the link it does not take you straight to the right page, you have to navigate to it. The link was inserted by the original contributor of the above text. I you do navigate to the correct page you will see the above text plus my added text shortly below. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 20:49, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
I have added this section in an attempt to give a summary of all those who have a case for the above title. Some of this is taken from the similar article 'History of Radio' but I have restricted the entrants to those who have a claim to be the first to have invented radio in some sense of the words.
It would be good to see some discussion here rather than just edit waring. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 09:20, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
I have reached the stage where Hertz has clearly demonstrated the transmission and reception of radio waves over a sort distance in a laboratory. The first question I would ask is, 'what else is there to do?' and then, 'who did it and when?'.
Bose, Popov, Testla, Marconi, Lodge all have claims, but what are they? The following have all been done: the original concept, the first actual transmission and reception, the first intentional transmission and reception, the first US patent granted for wireless telegraphy.
One claim that I would not personally consider significant is the first to recognize the potential or radio. I would consider Hertz as unusual in not recognizing the obvious potential of wireless communication. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 10:09, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
By 1888 Hertz had clearly demonstrated the transmission and reception of radio waves.
In 1893, at St. Louis, Missouri, Tesla gave a public demonstration of "wireless" radio communication. Does anyone know what the distance was and whether a message of any kind was sent and, if so, what it was?
On 19 August 1994 Lodge sent a wireless message by Morse code. Was this the first actual message sent by radio?
In 1894 Bose gave a public demonstration in which he ignited gunpowder. In 1895 (reported 1896) he sent a signal nearly a mile. Was that the longest distance so far?
In 1895 Popov sent a signal 600 yds.
Some time between 1896 and 1897 Tesla detected CW transmissions at 50kHz up to 30 miles. Does anyone know: The exact date that he achieved this range? How he detected CW transmissions? What kind of antennae he used for 50kHz? Who witnessed this?
By May 1897, Marconi had sent signals over land and sea over 6km
In 1898 Popov could send signals 7-9 km
In 1899 Popov could send signals 30 miles
In 1904 Marconi set up a commercial radio service. Was this the first? 86.132.189.39 ( talk) 20:41, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
In my opinion this distinction attempts to pre-judge the issue of who invented radio. Frequency of citation cannot easily be determined and varies from country to country and source to source. The distinction should be dropped. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 21:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
What exactly did Tesla transmit in 1891 and over what distance. Was the claim verified? Martin Hogbin ( talk) 21:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Read the reference! J. D. Redding 21:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
You may also be interested in :
J. D. Redding 21:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
On what basis did Tesla hold the 'rights to radio'? The first radio patent was granted to Ward. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 22:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Tesla's claims are all stated on a vague manner unlike all the other inventors. They need to be worded along the lines of confirmed transmission over x km in year yyyy or they should be deleted. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 22:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Stuck a {{ cleanup}} on this article ... will come back to clean up the edit war later ... 22:42, 4 August 2008 (UTC) {{ ugly}}
I have read the reference cited for this claim and it does not support the claim that Tesla transmitted radio waves in 1891. The lecture is principally about the lighting of arc lamps and discharge tubes. He claims to have lit gas discharge tubes remotely but no mention whatever is made of EM waves, the only method of radio communication.
The claim should be reworded to say that Tesla claimed to have caused gas discharge tube to light remotely with a high frequency (20kHz) electric field. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 17:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
20kHz. longwave radio band. Nuff said. J. D. Redding 18:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
VLF is not longwave it is only used for specialist communications at very low data rates. What Tesla did was simply to capacitively couple his discharge tubes to a 20 kHz supply. No EM waves were involved and none were even claimed to be involved. It cannot, by any stretch of the imagination be called a radio transmission. But why argue, why not simply state exactly what Tesla did, that is perfectly fair to all. Why not just put in the 'for' section, 'Tesla claimed to have lit gas discharge tubes remotely with a 20 kHz supply'? Martin Hogbin ( talk) 21:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
In order to establish priority over Bose for the first confirmed radio transmission over a significant distance, we need to produce evidence that Tesla did this first. Note that we need to show that the transmission used radio waves and was verified by an independent observer, as was the case with Bose. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 17:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
No. We need a reliable reference to cite it. Sincerely, J. D. Redding 18:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
You removed my statement that Bose was the first to transmit over a significant distance. Bose is well documented to have transmitted over 75 feet. To challenge the fact that he was the first you must cite a reliable reference that shows that Tesla (or somebody else) did this earlier. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 21:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
I have moved Marconi's 1895 transmissions into the 'for' section, where they logically belong. Whether or not they were bettered by someone else they are an achievement of Marconi, not a failure. The date is there for all to see. The logical way to show that this was not a great achievement is to put the earlier date of someone else in their for section. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 21:53, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
I would like to rewrite Tesla's 'For' section of the table to summarize his achievements with dates and whether confirmed or not but I would like to do this after some discussion of the subject. Here is what I have taken from the article and how I propose to summarize it:
Section beginning - Around July 1891, he established his New York laboratory...
Summary - In 1891 Tesla lit gas discharge tubes using without the use of wires.
Section beginning - Later, a variety of Tesla's radio frequency systems were demonstrated...
Summary - Referring to a demonstration of his lighting equipment in 1893 the IEE said "the apparatus that he employed contained all the elements of spark and continuous wave that were incorporated into radio transmitters before the advent of the vacuum tube"
Section beginning - After 1892, Tesla received wireless signals ...
Summary - In 1895 Tesla was ready to transmit a signal 50 miles but fire destroyed his lab
Section Beginning - his exhibition of a radio-guided...
Summary - In 1898 Tesla demonstrated a radio controlled boat in Madison Square Garden
Section about Tesla's patents
Summary - 1990 Tesla was granted two parents for 'Apparatus for Transmission of Electrical Energy' Martin Hogbin ( talk) 18:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
The summaries of prospective 'inventors of radio' that I have added so far concentrate on specific achievements of the various contenders, particularly instances of radio transmission and reception. I think that we all agree that there are other, more general, ways in which a person may contribute to the 'invention' of radio. For example Bose and Tesla contributed the innovation of some of the components used in radio and Marconi, Popov, and Tesla were concerned with the commercial application of radio. Others contributed to the popularization and public awareness of radio.
I would like to add short (one sentence) summaries of more general achievements to the table. Any suggestions? 86.133.176.101 ( talk) 11:23, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
The quotation below [my capitals] taken directly from the IEEE source quoted clearly refers to 1893. The item in the summary should be changed to show this.
"In 1893 the Chicago World Columbian Exposition was lighted by means of Tesla's system and work was begun on the installation of power machinery at Niagara Falls. In a lecture-demonstration given in St. Louis IN THE SAME YEAR -two years before Marconi's first experiments-Tesla also predicted wireless communication; the apparatus that he employed contained all the elements of spark and continuous wave that were incorporated into radio transmitters before the advent of the vacuum tube".
Martin Hogbin (
talk) 17:24, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
I was hoping to have a summary table showing very short statements of the achievements of each inventor together with date and confirmed/unconfirmed status. In the case of Tesla, the table has been expanded to add a lot of unnecessary detail, much of which is duplication. I suggest that the place for this kind of detail is in the body of the text above. To add detail to one 'inventor' only gives a biased view and to do it to all defeats the object of having a summary table.
How about some discussion? Martin Hogbin ( talk) 19:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
These are necessary details. They are short statements.
The detail is in the body of the text above, also ... but mentioned briefly because this outlines the pros and cons!
Add detail to all 'inventors' to give a balanced view. Keep them short statements!
The object of having a summary table is to outline who did what. This is accomplished with the table I would suppose.
J. D. Redding 19:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
I see that most of the added material has now been put as footnotes, this is much better in my opinion, although it would be nice to have a way to distinguish between footnotes (extra detail in the article to explain and support the main text) and citations (of external documents). Martin Hogbin ( talk) 20:24, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Moved from main article space ... J. D. Redding 18:33, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
This statement is pure nonsense. Radio receivers usually have more that two tuned circuits but it is quite possible to build one with just one tuned circuit or even none. Of course there may have been some technical advantages in some cases to having two tuned circuits in certain early radio designs but it is not, and never has been, a requirement of a radio communication system. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 15:02, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
I have just deleted the statement again because (apart from in the context of the Marconi US patent dispute) it is just plain wrong, and obviously so. Yo can see designs for receivers with just one tuned circuit in many places. Many receivers have more. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 15:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
We've got Radio. We've got Invention of radio. We've got Timeline of radio. And we've got History of radio. Could we merge "invention" and 'timeline" into "history", and truncate the history part of the "radio" article? -- Wtshymanski ( talk) 23:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
The "Invention of radio" is a well-known concept in history. J. D. Redding 14:10, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
This article is specifically about the invention of radio. It should therefore concentrate on those who have some sort of a claim to be the inventor of radio (radio seems to have a lot of fathers). De Forest was, of course, an important contributor to the development of radio but there is no way that he could ever be described as the inventor of radio. All the others in the table have some claim to the title; he does not and should be removed, otherwise the article becomes a rehash of History of radio. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 17:16, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
This article would be more useful if it was focussed on the patent dispute between the Marconi company and the US Government. Anyone can look at the Supreme Court decision ( see http://supreme.justia.com/us/320/1/case.html ) and see that it overturns Claim 16 of one of Marconi's patents. Also please read the dissenting opinions. The case is about the Marconi company not getting paid by the US government for use of some of the Marconi company's patents during WWI. Tesla barely gets mentioned - John Stone Stone's system gets more discussion, and even that is acknowledged not to be identical to Marconi's patent. The Marconi patent was valid for years, and by the time of the 1943 Supreme Court decision the patent would have expired anyway.
Some editors apparently believe the transistor invention is relevant to the history of radio. Why? Radio was big business and fully practical long before 1948. Certainly invention of the transistor has no relevance to the priority disputes of *two generations* before.
Wikipedia articles should be concise - this one rambles all the way from Hertz to the Supreme Court and gives a potted Tesla mini-biography en-route. All of this is redundant - no-one not involved in editing this mess will ever *read* the darn thing through and understand the issue. The Popov, Lodge,etc. claims are already described in History of radio and are redundant here. "Longitudinal waves" are not radio, whatever else they are. Conduction, induction, capacitive coupling are also not radio. The article should stick to its title subject. -- Wtshymanski ( talk) 14:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps it might be a good idea to discuss what people think is the purpose of this article. If we cannot agree on a purpose then the article should be deleted, as we already have at least two articles on radio and its history.
I believe that it should address the question, 'Who invented radio?' The article should list possible contenders for the title and give concise and balanced reasons as to why they are such. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 17:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
I do not entirely disagree with that
Wtshymanski; the history of the subject is well covered elsewhere. On the other hand, 'Who invented radio?' must be a commonly asked question which clearly cannot be answered with a single name. An article which gives balanced information on all contenders, so that people can make up their own minds, might be worthwhile. What is not worth having, in my opinion, is a Marconi vs Tesla article.
Martin Hogbin (
talk) 18:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Where is the evidence of independent confirmation that Tesla transmitted radio waves before 1898? If this is not provided, his date of first transmission must be 1898. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 21:26, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Much of his lectures and demonstrations were public. Do you know about the 1893 demonstration? Any of the other tech demonstrations in that time? Do you know what a demonstration is?!?! Have you seen the image of him standing on the platform in from of the London society? Have read the lectures done in America and in Europe? Do you know anything realy about his radio work? Also, the references and citations that are provided in the article give information. 19:52, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Of course I know about the 1893 demonstration, I could hardly not, but I am asking about radio transmissions. In his demonstrations he lit gas discharge tubes by capacitive coupling or by conduction through his own body. Where is the evidence that he sent radio waves, or indeed anything, more than a few feet? Martin Hogbin ( talk) 20:09, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
You seem to be completely misunderstanding the question. Marconi, for example, has clear examples of radio transmissions that were observed by independent parties. He was witnessed to have transmitted over 6 km in March and May 1897. There are no equivalent verified transmissions by Tesla, certainly nothing more than a few feet by capacitive coupling. Wikipedia policy is that claims must be verifiable. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 21:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
J. D. Redding 21:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Do any of these books show where Tesla was witnessed to have transmitted over any significant distance? Martin Hogbin ( talk) 21:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
It gets worse and worse...we also have an article Wireless. Could someone please tell me what the purpose of all these overlapping articles is?
I've quickly looked at the Tesla patents and find that the he repeatedly claims his devices work by conduction through the air, not by propagation of electromagnetic waves. Whatever Tesla was doing, it wasn't radio. The long Tesla section in this article was misleading...Tesla wasn't working on radio, but on power transfer (his patent description shows light bulbs and motors hung off his "receiver" coil!). Tesla apparently believed that any Hertzian emissions from Tesla's apparatus was only a loss mechanism and of no value for communications. In this Tesla was mistaken since his conduction principle has never produced usable results and the air is thick with Hertzian waves making money for their users.
Patent validity is a very shaky basis for assigning priority; would anyone be happy if we said Tesla invented radio from 1893 to 1898, then Lodge and Stone invented it, then from 1902 through 1943 Marconi invented it, then from 1943 to pick a date Tesla invented it again? Seems unsatisfactory, and wrong.
Someone secure in his facts need not resort to Ad hominem attacks.
Reddi, please define for us what radio is so we can figure out what you want. Right now this is like arguing about the habits and nature of the heffalump. Arguments are often a sign of climbing too high on the ladder of semantic abstraction - please point at what you mean when you say "Tesla invented THIS".
The article would be more interesting if it talked about why some people believe Tesla invented radio, and if the Supreme Court was correct in invalidating one of Marconi's patents.
The article would be more accurate as it reads now if it was titled "Tesla invented radio" since this would accurately reflect its current point of view. -- Wtshymanski ( talk) 13:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)