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 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
To say that: "Edison did not invent the first electric light bulb, but instead invented the first commercially practical incandescent light." is a non sense. You cannot have several inventors for one item. The inventor is the one who made the first one, commercially practical or not. In the case of the bulb the inventor is a French inventor de La Rue in 1820. On this point John H. Lienhard, Professor Emeritus of Mechanical Engineering and History at the University of Houston cannot be more positive in his paper: "Electric light before Edison" http://www.uh.edu/engines/epi1330.htm when he says:"Edison's contribution to electric lighting wasn't its invention, but its development." Because if we agree that invented the first commercially practical light bulb, we must also agree that he never invented the first commercially practical phonograph, as his first one, the tinfoil phonograph, was not commercially practical and, in this case, we must claim that Alexander Graham Bell invented the first commercially practical phonograph as it is him and his research team that have patented the wax recording, that permits to the Edison phonograph to be commercially practical. This is why I believe that the sentense: "Edison did not invent the first electric light bulb, but instead invented the first commercially practical incandescent light." must be replaced by this one: "Edison did not invent the first electric light bulb, but instead patented the first commercially practical incandescent light." as everybody knows that a patent (normally an improvement) is not an invention in itself. http://app.onlinephotofiler.com/images/A_5/2/1/0/50125/The_SoundBox01_17135.jpg?v=f90b Jean-Paul Agnard jean-paul.agnard@sympatico.ca —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.159.182.59 ( talk) 19:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
I removed the link to Hart's personal opinion about Edison's "rank". Then User:Edison reverted my edit, saying: It was a published book, not just someone's "personal opinion." Well, it's a personal opinion in a published book. Nothing is easier than publishing a book. Being on Hart's questionable list certainly is not an "award" or "honor", as the section title indicates. In fact, it is more like the opposite of an honor to those who think Edison should rank higher. But I won't revert your edit this time since in this particular case a few alternative (and less personal) lists by other US sources (LIFE and the TV series) are mentioned as well. Gimmemoretime ( talk) 15:14, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
It has a quote from him about the high morality of total non-violence, but it doesn't specifically mention animals, rather, "living beings" which I would take to mean other humans, and a statement of pacifist philosophy. Additionally he famously executed an elephant to display the danger of AC current. Doesn't this somewhat degrade the idea that he was morally opposed to animal cruelty? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.29.124.11 ( talk) 20:32, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
{{
editsemiprotected}}
The link to Greenfield Village underneath the workshop image should point to Greenfield Village in Michigan, not Texas.
Could we get a citation on his father being known as the Iron Shovel? It seems pretty improbably, and google reveals only wiki mirrors and things that likely are referencing this page. mkehrt ( talk) 00:01, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
In Patent 223898 the date "1st day of November , A.D., 1879" (page 3, at the end) is printed as signing day, whereas in the current article, the "November 4, 1879" is claimed to be the filed date. Is there a difference between signing and filed date? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.133.5.252 ( talk) 12:10, 13 February 2010 (UTC) make some plays about him —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.20.204.174 ( talk) 22:39, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Didn't Thmos Alva Edison construct giant molds for a concret house? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paxmoi ( talk • contribs) 05:45, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Saying Edison was a 'prolific inventor' is akin to say Bill Gates is a 'prolific programmer'. He was a simply a businessman adept at acquiring intellectual property.
Further, the attempt to credit the light-bulb to Edison with the 'practical' qualifier is absurd. Edison held a patent for the screw end-cap and base for electric light-bulbs. When Tesla was awarded the contract to light the World Fair, Edison refused to license the screw-cap technology to Tesla. Tesla, painfully aware of Edison's propensity to pursue profit over public welfare, developed his own bulbs and method for delivering the AC electric current to power the bulbs. Suffice to say that his contract to light the World Fair was met (if not exceeded) with ease.
Edison was merely a prolific collector of intellectual property. Most of it derivative to boot. How about we list Edison's patents so readers can determine their value in the scheme of progressing technology?
00:04, 12 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jason.Singer ( talk • contribs)
The quote above doesn't cite its sources, but maybe another WP contributor can help me dig up some info about this. -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 14:22, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
anhdgfyewt —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.247.52.152 ( talk) 22:46, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
I read on a few sites that he had 5 markings on his forearm but there is no mention of this in the article. Is it something that should be added? Viskadaik ( talk) 11:32, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
I've heard for many years from many people I've known that Edison stole the designs of the electric lightbulb from Nikola Tesla. Has anybody ever taken this seriously other than me. If so, maybe should include a section on it. - It's for the Lutz ( talk) 21:09, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Neither did Tesla create the electric light bulb or the light bulb at all the English did 109.154.0.180 ( talk) 11:34, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
WIlliam Friese-Greene from England invented the motion picture camera. "On June 21, 1889, Friese-Greene was issued patent no. 10131 for his 'chronophotographic' camera." He sent Edison a letter about it and it was in published trade magazines as well. 99.177.118.220 ( talk) 03:42, 18 November 2010 (UTC)AD source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Friese-Greene
Edisons kinetiscope wasn't invented until 1892 99.177.118.220 ( talk) 03:42, 18 November 2010 (UTC)AD source http://edison.rutgers.edu/pictures.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.177.118.220 ( talk) 05:00, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
wrong the Lumiere Brothers were the ones to make a motion picture camera —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.158.240.230 ( talk) 19:28, 10 November 2010 (UTC) where is the source for this comment, you have no proof so why add it when I clearly listed sources for my statements 99.177.118.220 ( talk) 03:42, 18 November 2010 (UTC)AD
Yes, sorry I don't have a source for this but I saw recently somewhere he actually got to look at the SChott patent in the patent office. 99.177.118.220 ( talk) 03:42, 18 November 2010 (UTC)AD
There is a serious error here in this article. it says that Thomas Edison was a proponent of DC electricity. this is not true. it was Tesla who favored DC. Dc drops in power over a few short miles, and that is the reason why Tesla never became famous because it was too dangerous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.158.240.230 ( talk) 19:35, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Thomas was born in mexico In the state of Zacatecas in a town called Sombrerete. http://aztlanjournal.metapress.com/openurl.asp?genre=article&issn=0005-2604&volume=9&issue=1&spage=151 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.152.159.163 ( talk) 03:36, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
The quote attributed to Edison under his picture indicates a date of 1932, yet the date of death is listed as 1931. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.44.92.46 ( talk) 20:38, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Isn't the U.S. age of consent 18 ? (Although, isn't it 14 in Texas ?) So, as he married a 16 year old woman, by present day definitions he is a pedophile ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.30.192.25 ( talk) 13:52, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
"Isn't the U.S. age of consent 18?" Hey IDIOT, this was the NINETEENTH CENTURY!!! Thoughout the western world, females marrying at the age of 16 were common. Never raising as much as an eyebrow from the emerging Victoian era. Actually, a young girl marrying a man who was middle-aged and still in the prime of life was applauded AND encouraged, as well as her parents for matching her with any man who had established means. What was frowned upon at that time (and still very-much today,)was if the man were eighteen to her, say sixteen, or both were the same teen age (Though today, as was true then, a parent could get a waiver, and consent to the union). A young marriage was mightily discouraged by society AND the girl's parents in that bygone era, as they saw "young love" as impetuous, irrational, and especially IMMATURE. Unless the man was shown to be of more than sufficient means, maturity and responsibility; that he came from a respected family, the whole idea was nixed. Also, remember that arranged marriages were still quite common in turn-of-the-century America. (And too, fathers were eager to get their daughters "married off" as soon as possible, so they wouldn't get "radical" ideas of "independence" floating in their heads.) Not like the "mail-order brides" of the rambling Old West! (Actually, would it surprise you that arranged unions are still widely carried out today accross every interested section and spectrum of society in the West. It's just more informal, as the female ESPECIALLY is tasked by parents and relatives to choose a mate within the liking of the parents, and often-times, relatives. "Gotta please Mom and Dad, my grandparents AND priest, ya know?" You should also study more about Edison's life before making moronic and scurrilous accusations. If you did delve further, you would find that Edison's second marriage was more a "politcal" arrangement than anything else, as little Mina was a neice of Thomas Alva's principal enemy and competitor JUPITER PIERPONT MORGAN. Struggling as the latter was to keep his floundering gas-light industry afloat against the inevitability of the electric street lamp. So, the marrige was a very strategically diabolic "investment" on Morgan's part to overtake Edison' business, which eventually happened. (We are reminded that Morgan a a ROBBER BARON: This is what they do.)It is strange that you'd call Alva Edison a pedophile. Why, unless you seek to marr his reputation? |talk]]) 03:44, 4 February 2011 (UTC)Veryverser
We are talking SOCIAL CONVENTIONS here, of course. Naturally long before the 1960sA.D. "women's liberation", all females needed their parents or guardian(s)'s consent, whether they were co-habitating with them, or the women were apart from them and\or had indepenent means. This was common all over the world, with this tradition being broken, beginingin in North America by enforced emigration(for example)of Irish and other European refugees in the nineteenth, and then again in the early twentieth centuries. Even women who were twenty-one years old in the turn-of-the nineteenth, and early twentieth century's "middle-class" strata were required to seek a respectable, well-heeled sponsor, to give consent to a bethrotal if these females ever were to hope to enter what was then regarded as "respectable" society". This all seemed to chagge in America after World War I, as there seemed to have been a definite "cultural shift", throwing-off those old traditions of a previous generation and epoch. Edison's age difference is a non-issue. Even in most parts of Asia and Europe today, age in a marriage of an older man to a (well, sometimes much) younger woman is revered. Here, in the States, various wealthly and powerful men, among them old Hollywood and media types flaunt their marriage to virtual child-brides(Woody Allen, Rupert Murdock as obvious examples. Curious-wouldn't you agree-that in both cases cited, these men chose YOUNG, ORIENTAL WOMEN, rather than western ones for their "sunset years"). In Alva Edison's case, this was sort of a "wirlwind romance" manipulated by the girl's uncle, as I cited above, to get at Edison and control of his company. Think Napolean Bonaparte's divorce of Josephine to marry a Hapsburgh princess, and the world-shattering events that ensued from such a "political" union. Special:Contributions/ ( talk) 08:45, 7 February 2011 (UTC)Veryverser
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 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
To say that: "Edison did not invent the first electric light bulb, but instead invented the first commercially practical incandescent light." is a non sense. You cannot have several inventors for one item. The inventor is the one who made the first one, commercially practical or not. In the case of the bulb the inventor is a French inventor de La Rue in 1820. On this point John H. Lienhard, Professor Emeritus of Mechanical Engineering and History at the University of Houston cannot be more positive in his paper: "Electric light before Edison" http://www.uh.edu/engines/epi1330.htm when he says:"Edison's contribution to electric lighting wasn't its invention, but its development." Because if we agree that invented the first commercially practical light bulb, we must also agree that he never invented the first commercially practical phonograph, as his first one, the tinfoil phonograph, was not commercially practical and, in this case, we must claim that Alexander Graham Bell invented the first commercially practical phonograph as it is him and his research team that have patented the wax recording, that permits to the Edison phonograph to be commercially practical. This is why I believe that the sentense: "Edison did not invent the first electric light bulb, but instead invented the first commercially practical incandescent light." must be replaced by this one: "Edison did not invent the first electric light bulb, but instead patented the first commercially practical incandescent light." as everybody knows that a patent (normally an improvement) is not an invention in itself. http://app.onlinephotofiler.com/images/A_5/2/1/0/50125/The_SoundBox01_17135.jpg?v=f90b Jean-Paul Agnard jean-paul.agnard@sympatico.ca —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.159.182.59 ( talk) 19:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
I removed the link to Hart's personal opinion about Edison's "rank". Then User:Edison reverted my edit, saying: It was a published book, not just someone's "personal opinion." Well, it's a personal opinion in a published book. Nothing is easier than publishing a book. Being on Hart's questionable list certainly is not an "award" or "honor", as the section title indicates. In fact, it is more like the opposite of an honor to those who think Edison should rank higher. But I won't revert your edit this time since in this particular case a few alternative (and less personal) lists by other US sources (LIFE and the TV series) are mentioned as well. Gimmemoretime ( talk) 15:14, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
It has a quote from him about the high morality of total non-violence, but it doesn't specifically mention animals, rather, "living beings" which I would take to mean other humans, and a statement of pacifist philosophy. Additionally he famously executed an elephant to display the danger of AC current. Doesn't this somewhat degrade the idea that he was morally opposed to animal cruelty? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.29.124.11 ( talk) 20:32, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
{{
editsemiprotected}}
The link to Greenfield Village underneath the workshop image should point to Greenfield Village in Michigan, not Texas.
Could we get a citation on his father being known as the Iron Shovel? It seems pretty improbably, and google reveals only wiki mirrors and things that likely are referencing this page. mkehrt ( talk) 00:01, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
In Patent 223898 the date "1st day of November , A.D., 1879" (page 3, at the end) is printed as signing day, whereas in the current article, the "November 4, 1879" is claimed to be the filed date. Is there a difference between signing and filed date? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.133.5.252 ( talk) 12:10, 13 February 2010 (UTC) make some plays about him —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.20.204.174 ( talk) 22:39, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Didn't Thmos Alva Edison construct giant molds for a concret house? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paxmoi ( talk • contribs) 05:45, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Saying Edison was a 'prolific inventor' is akin to say Bill Gates is a 'prolific programmer'. He was a simply a businessman adept at acquiring intellectual property.
Further, the attempt to credit the light-bulb to Edison with the 'practical' qualifier is absurd. Edison held a patent for the screw end-cap and base for electric light-bulbs. When Tesla was awarded the contract to light the World Fair, Edison refused to license the screw-cap technology to Tesla. Tesla, painfully aware of Edison's propensity to pursue profit over public welfare, developed his own bulbs and method for delivering the AC electric current to power the bulbs. Suffice to say that his contract to light the World Fair was met (if not exceeded) with ease.
Edison was merely a prolific collector of intellectual property. Most of it derivative to boot. How about we list Edison's patents so readers can determine their value in the scheme of progressing technology?
00:04, 12 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jason.Singer ( talk • contribs)
The quote above doesn't cite its sources, but maybe another WP contributor can help me dig up some info about this. -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 14:22, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
anhdgfyewt —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.247.52.152 ( talk) 22:46, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
I read on a few sites that he had 5 markings on his forearm but there is no mention of this in the article. Is it something that should be added? Viskadaik ( talk) 11:32, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
I've heard for many years from many people I've known that Edison stole the designs of the electric lightbulb from Nikola Tesla. Has anybody ever taken this seriously other than me. If so, maybe should include a section on it. - It's for the Lutz ( talk) 21:09, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Neither did Tesla create the electric light bulb or the light bulb at all the English did 109.154.0.180 ( talk) 11:34, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
WIlliam Friese-Greene from England invented the motion picture camera. "On June 21, 1889, Friese-Greene was issued patent no. 10131 for his 'chronophotographic' camera." He sent Edison a letter about it and it was in published trade magazines as well. 99.177.118.220 ( talk) 03:42, 18 November 2010 (UTC)AD source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Friese-Greene
Edisons kinetiscope wasn't invented until 1892 99.177.118.220 ( talk) 03:42, 18 November 2010 (UTC)AD source http://edison.rutgers.edu/pictures.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.177.118.220 ( talk) 05:00, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
wrong the Lumiere Brothers were the ones to make a motion picture camera —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.158.240.230 ( talk) 19:28, 10 November 2010 (UTC) where is the source for this comment, you have no proof so why add it when I clearly listed sources for my statements 99.177.118.220 ( talk) 03:42, 18 November 2010 (UTC)AD
Yes, sorry I don't have a source for this but I saw recently somewhere he actually got to look at the SChott patent in the patent office. 99.177.118.220 ( talk) 03:42, 18 November 2010 (UTC)AD
There is a serious error here in this article. it says that Thomas Edison was a proponent of DC electricity. this is not true. it was Tesla who favored DC. Dc drops in power over a few short miles, and that is the reason why Tesla never became famous because it was too dangerous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.158.240.230 ( talk) 19:35, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Thomas was born in mexico In the state of Zacatecas in a town called Sombrerete. http://aztlanjournal.metapress.com/openurl.asp?genre=article&issn=0005-2604&volume=9&issue=1&spage=151 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.152.159.163 ( talk) 03:36, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
The quote attributed to Edison under his picture indicates a date of 1932, yet the date of death is listed as 1931. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.44.92.46 ( talk) 20:38, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Isn't the U.S. age of consent 18 ? (Although, isn't it 14 in Texas ?) So, as he married a 16 year old woman, by present day definitions he is a pedophile ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.30.192.25 ( talk) 13:52, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
"Isn't the U.S. age of consent 18?" Hey IDIOT, this was the NINETEENTH CENTURY!!! Thoughout the western world, females marrying at the age of 16 were common. Never raising as much as an eyebrow from the emerging Victoian era. Actually, a young girl marrying a man who was middle-aged and still in the prime of life was applauded AND encouraged, as well as her parents for matching her with any man who had established means. What was frowned upon at that time (and still very-much today,)was if the man were eighteen to her, say sixteen, or both were the same teen age (Though today, as was true then, a parent could get a waiver, and consent to the union). A young marriage was mightily discouraged by society AND the girl's parents in that bygone era, as they saw "young love" as impetuous, irrational, and especially IMMATURE. Unless the man was shown to be of more than sufficient means, maturity and responsibility; that he came from a respected family, the whole idea was nixed. Also, remember that arranged marriages were still quite common in turn-of-the-century America. (And too, fathers were eager to get their daughters "married off" as soon as possible, so they wouldn't get "radical" ideas of "independence" floating in their heads.) Not like the "mail-order brides" of the rambling Old West! (Actually, would it surprise you that arranged unions are still widely carried out today accross every interested section and spectrum of society in the West. It's just more informal, as the female ESPECIALLY is tasked by parents and relatives to choose a mate within the liking of the parents, and often-times, relatives. "Gotta please Mom and Dad, my grandparents AND priest, ya know?" You should also study more about Edison's life before making moronic and scurrilous accusations. If you did delve further, you would find that Edison's second marriage was more a "politcal" arrangement than anything else, as little Mina was a neice of Thomas Alva's principal enemy and competitor JUPITER PIERPONT MORGAN. Struggling as the latter was to keep his floundering gas-light industry afloat against the inevitability of the electric street lamp. So, the marrige was a very strategically diabolic "investment" on Morgan's part to overtake Edison' business, which eventually happened. (We are reminded that Morgan a a ROBBER BARON: This is what they do.)It is strange that you'd call Alva Edison a pedophile. Why, unless you seek to marr his reputation? |talk]]) 03:44, 4 February 2011 (UTC)Veryverser
We are talking SOCIAL CONVENTIONS here, of course. Naturally long before the 1960sA.D. "women's liberation", all females needed their parents or guardian(s)'s consent, whether they were co-habitating with them, or the women were apart from them and\or had indepenent means. This was common all over the world, with this tradition being broken, beginingin in North America by enforced emigration(for example)of Irish and other European refugees in the nineteenth, and then again in the early twentieth centuries. Even women who were twenty-one years old in the turn-of-the nineteenth, and early twentieth century's "middle-class" strata were required to seek a respectable, well-heeled sponsor, to give consent to a bethrotal if these females ever were to hope to enter what was then regarded as "respectable" society". This all seemed to chagge in America after World War I, as there seemed to have been a definite "cultural shift", throwing-off those old traditions of a previous generation and epoch. Edison's age difference is a non-issue. Even in most parts of Asia and Europe today, age in a marriage of an older man to a (well, sometimes much) younger woman is revered. Here, in the States, various wealthly and powerful men, among them old Hollywood and media types flaunt their marriage to virtual child-brides(Woody Allen, Rupert Murdock as obvious examples. Curious-wouldn't you agree-that in both cases cited, these men chose YOUNG, ORIENTAL WOMEN, rather than western ones for their "sunset years"). In Alva Edison's case, this was sort of a "wirlwind romance" manipulated by the girl's uncle, as I cited above, to get at Edison and control of his company. Think Napolean Bonaparte's divorce of Josephine to marry a Hapsburgh princess, and the world-shattering events that ensued from such a "political" union. Special:Contributions/ ( talk) 08:45, 7 February 2011 (UTC)Veryverser