Ph: 210491552

Talk:Invention of radio/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 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.

Contents

1 Case of X 2 NPOV 3 Statements 4 Joseph Henry 5 First developed in 1879? 6 Could someone list the "weasel words"? 7 Inappropriate title 8 Uncontrolled Editing 9 Timeline, Players 10 Case Against Tesla 11 Opening 12 Article refocussing/naming 13 Intro? Maxwell? What? 14 consideration of patents ... WTF?!? 15 Timeline 16 The introduction doesn't make much sense... 17 Case of Priority Section

Case of X

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)

NPOV

I think this article either should be renamed to "Marconi vs. Tesla" or undergo a significant clean up. Issues to be resolved:

ordering and size - it was not Hertz inventing on top of Tesla's and Marconi's previous inventions but exactly the opposite. So if it comes to "The Invention" of radio Hertz ought to precede Tesla/Marconi duet and his contribution should be clearly identifiable. Branly's coherer is only briefly mentioned while without it first detectors wouldn't work. Otherwise it would be clear violation of WP:NPOV#Undue weight. discrediting - statements like "... but the transmitter was not very good for actual use ..." are against the WP:NPOV#Fairness and sympathetic tone. single POV - above mentioned "end of 1895" is obviously after the date of May 7th, 1895 which is celebrated in USSR and Russia as the Radio Invention Day. This comparison is not explored at all, Russian/USSR position also is completely ignored (which is warned in WP:NPOV#Anglo-American focus). second-hand sources - I do not know who Henry M. Bradford is (and don't think I should). However his web pages do not cite their sources. Thus the chain of sources is broken and cannot be verified. Sentences like "Guglielmo Marconi's proponents state ... [3]" and "Marconi transmitted radio signals a distance of about a mile at the end of 1895. [4]" simply just put him in this "proponents"-category and provides factoids (see WP:CITE, WP:RS, WP:AWW). For example here it is stated that German AEG was manifacturing equipment based on Popov's design as early as 1897, while article Marconi Company is talking about 1898. However it is also not pointing its sources and also is not verifiable.

Therefore I am going to put the POV-template. -- Goldie (tell me) 14:51, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Are you going to try to rectify the article?
1. Hertz had not an idea on the practical application of radio waves.
2. Early wireless was done at LF to low MF. Hertz's UHF apparatus was "not good" for early wireless.
3. Single POV is a NPOV violation, but the article could use an internationalize tag instead of a NPOV one. Wikipedia:Template messages
4. These are not second hand. Some are primary sources and some are secondary sources.
The tage should be removed and replace with more appropriate tags.
134.193.168.249 21:21, 1 June 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

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)

Joseph Henry

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)

First developed in 1879?

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)

I have no idea. That website gave absolutely no details, references or anything else; it's nothing more than a brash statement. Erzahler 17:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Maybe the author just switched last two digits and meant 1897, not really 1879... --Aleksandar Šušnjar 18:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
This is likely a reference to David Hughes. In 1879 he was able to use a carbon microphone to hear the sounds produced by sparks, but never identified it as radio signals, and was discouraged from doing further research. His review of these events is at http://earlyradiohistory.us/1899fah.htm and a view of his equipment http://earlyradiohistory.us/1922hugh.htm Thomas H. White 20:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Could someone list the "weasel words"?

Someone please make a list so people can work on it. 134.193.94.173

Inappropriate title

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 current title is descriptive: it is more information about the history of radio. Anthony Appleyard 19:23, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
That's ridiculous. The current title is less descriptive and less accurate than the prior title. Did I miss a discussion on this? Unless you can give a good reason for making this article's title more vague than the prior title, it should be moved back. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sparkhead (talk • contribs) 20:23, September 20, 2006 (UTC)
I also think that moving this information from its original location at "Invention of Radio" to "History of Radio (more information)" is a big mistake. This page was originally designed to discuss the "Who Invented Radio" controversy, and I think it should revert back to its original name. If you think the "History of Radio" page is too big, it should be subdivided into well organized and described addition pages. "More information" is so broad and vague that it is meaningless and confusing.Thomas H. White 21:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
I also agree this title is inappropriate and a step backward from the prior title. From the first line of this article: This is longer information about some of the pioneers of development of radio. In other words, "it's about those involved with the invention of radio". Sparkhead 03:23, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Previously, as people edited History of radio and Invention of radio independently, they developed into the same subject split between two pages. That is the classical type of situation where merging is recommended, so I merged them. But that would have left the merged page too long, so I put the full versions of the long paragraphs about Marconi, Tesla, Jagdish Chandra Bose, and Heinrich Hertz into History of radio (more information), with for each a summary and a pointer in History of radio. That is why I called it "more information". Perhaps it could be renamed More information about 4 pioneers of radio or the like. Anthony Appleyard 06:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
How about "Invention of radio (more information)" with a disclaimer at the top of the article notifying editors of the "History of Radio" article with special notice to avoid duplicating information? Sparkhead 10:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Use of parenthesis is only acceptable as a disambiguation of an ambiguous general title, and then only when another phrase is unavailable (see Wikipedia:Disambiguation). The phrase "more information" does nothing to disambiguate Invention of radio. We have received enough additional comment to establish that the current title is inappropriate and should be moved back. --Blainster 19:52, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
In History of radio (more information), I merged the Jagdish Chandra Bose and Heinrich Hertz matter into History of radio#Jagdish Chandra Bose and History of radio#Hertz, and split the rest into Dispute about Marconi's priority as to who invented radio and Dispute about Tesla's priority as to who invented radio. Anthony Appleyard 20:39, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
You are making it even worse. Please stop making unadvised changes on a subject that is under discusssion. --Blainster 20:58, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Sorry. Rename them as Marconi's role in inventing radio and Tesla's role in inventing radio? If I merged them into History of radio, that would make History of radio too big. And in each put a disclaimer as Sparkhead suggested hereinabove? Anthony Appleyard 21:11, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Shorter is better. But let's see what others think before making any more title moves. --Blainster 21:21, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Anthony Appleyard, you're making the situation worse. I'm tempted to revert back to yesterday's version, but I'll let you take care of that. The problem with dividing it to only Marconi and Tesla is that they're not the only players in the invention of radio. Regarding Blainster's point, I think it should be named back, without the parenthetical title, and have an info box at the top warning about repeating content from the 'History of Radio'. Sparkhead 21:50, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
"not the only players in the invention of radio": I know that, but:-
Merging Marconi's role in the history of radio and Tesla's role in the history of radio (or whatever we call them) into History of radio would make History of radio too long, so History of radio#Tesla and History of radio#Marconi will each have to remain a stub with a pointer to a separate page. Merging them into a new page and moving more radio history matter in with them, would return to the original situation where the history of radio (which includes the invention of radio) was split between two pages (as people edited one or the other) and needed merging.

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)

Anthony Appleyard, You're screwing up the article. Which part of lets see what others think before making any other title moves did you not understand? Not only have you changed the title, you've split the article. Now someone has to go back and clean up the mess. The article should be merged back to what it was before your first title change, not merged back into the main article. Regarding the title, if not the previous one, a good one may be 'The Great Radio Controversy', which is what the battle between Tesla and Marconi was called (and is difficult to source due to the musical album of the same name by the band 'Tesla' making the majority of the hits in a search, but here's two sources [1][2]). In fact, since there's a War of the currents article based upon the AC vs DC battles Tesla was involved in, I think using 'Great Radio Controversy' would be an appropriate move.
That said, this article should be moved back to the state it was it before your first change, the new article on Tesla you created should be fast deleted, and we can discuss the title. Opinions? Sparkhead 11:31, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
OK, OK, do you want me to have a go at merging Marconi's role in the history of radio and Tesla's role in the history of radio? (The other contenders (Hertz etc) named in the original "Invention of Radio" text as in http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marconi's_role_in_the_history_of_radio&oldid=76173993, do not seem to be serious parties in this dispute.)
Or leave Marconi's role in the history of radio and Tesla's role in the history of radio separate, but move out of them into Great Radio Controversy (or similar) all matter which is specifically about the dispute.
Anthony Appleyard 12:29, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
The "Invention of Radio" controversy involves more than Tesla and Marconi, although they are two of the most prominent figures. (Others include Hertz, Popoff, Stubblefield, and Pupin). The original "Invention of Radio" page was something between a work-in-progress and a mess, so it needed a lot of clean up. Some of the duplication was valuable, and some needed to be removed, but this is such an emotional topic that people will have to move slowly. I don't doubt your good intentions, but I really believe that, flawed as the page was, the "Invention of Radio" page should be restored, with the understanding that there is plenty of room for improvement.Thomas H. White 13:23, 22 September 2006 (UTC) The matter from the old "Invention of Radio" text is all in History of radio, except for the Tesla and Marconi matter, which are in separate pages, as stated above.
I have copied relevant matter about Tesla and Marconi into Great Radio Controversy, but I did not delete it from other pages. Anthony Appleyard 13:43, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Uncontrolled Editing

Anthony Appleyard, STOP EDITING AND CREATING NEW ARTICLES. You just created Great Radio Controversy, which is so close to the entry for the musical album "The Great Radio Controversy" (yes, that's a different page), that it can cause nothing but confusion. A disambiguation page might be needed if that's the title to be put there. It was just a suggestion, you didn't need to go create a new article. If the title were to be used, it should be on this article, not a new one.
We're discussing the article here, and what to do with it. You should stop editing everything related to it. Now. Since everyone other than Anthony seem to agree that the previous title was acceptable but the article might need cleanup, I'm going to revert it to the pre-title-change version (sometime on Sept 17th) tomorrow morning US time if there's no other commentary to the contrary. Sparkhead 13:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
I have renamed it as Radio priority controversy. That should be clearer.
In the old form of Invention of radio, matter specifically about the dispute was mixed with general matter about Marconi's and Tesla's radio work, and in my opinion they needed to be separated.
Anthony Appleyard 05:59, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
You've made a complete mess of the articles involved. I can't move this page back to the old title because you've created another article with that title. I'm attempting to get some help from admins, but in the meantime, and I'm not the first to request this, stop creating articles and stop changing titles. Sparkhead 22:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
I've done some initial cleanup. Awaiting some speedy deletes so the move process back to the previous title can be completed. Please do not revert my reverts, as I believe I have acted according to the will of all the editors here except for yourself. I'll gladly speak with an admin regarding this if you wish to take that path. Sparkhead 22:54, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Invention_of_radio_and_some_pages_that_it_links_to. Anthony Appleyard 09:24, 26 September 2006 (UTC) If you're going to open an RfAr, stop editing the pages involved. I'm reverting your latest changes. Sparkhead 19:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Timeline, Players

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: Image:USPTOradio.png

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?

Case Against Tesla

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)

Opening

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: Several men had parts in inventing radio. During early development and long after wide acceptance of radio, disputes persisted as to who could claim responsibility for it. For the general history of radio, see History of radio. B: The invention of radio involved multiple parties. During early development and long after wide acceptance of the technology, disputes persisted as to who could claim responsibility. For the general history of radio, see History of radio.

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)

Wasn't trying to elegant, was trying to be clear. I'm intentionally using the phrase "invention of radio" in the opening as that's the title of the article. How about this:
Several men were involved in the invention of radio. During early development and long after wide acceptance, disputes persisted as to who could claim responsibility. For the general history of radio, see History of radio.

Article refocussing/naming

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)

That sounds rather like what I did, as complained about at length hereinabove. I put all general radio history matter matter into History of radio, with [[---#---]]-type section pointers to it from Radio priority controversy; that made History of radio too long, so I split off two of History of radio 's longest sections into separate files. Anthony Appleyard 06:35, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Mikka, this article needs to be expanded more beyond Tesla/Marconi, not pared down to just those two. They weren't the only ones involved in invention. History of Radio as it stands is already too long. We've been through this.
A little further clarification - Anthony, recall I said we had to get back to this point and then "go from there"? Well, I do believe both articles need major rewrites, and all the invention matter needs to be separated into this article. Will make both articles more manageable. Sparkhead 10:51, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Don't you find strange that in each and every paragraph you can find phrases like "not Marconi", "before Marconi" and so on, and it's never clearly said why every statement has to be opposed "to Marconi's" or something relating Marconi?
In fact throughout the entire article you try to demonstrate a thesis, and NEVER clearly explicate WHAT thesis is it: the article is obviously written to demonstrate Marconi did not invent the Radio (and trying to demonstrate Tesla did), but it's not even said that he is generally characterized as it's inventor...
Do you find it fair?
I do not.
CLEARLY explain what is commonly believed, or what you're trying to confute, and THEN oppose it.
Those ridicolous "not Marconi" etc, without something explicit to oppose, make this article only looking biased.
Perhaps a better title would be a beginning...

Intro? Maxwell? What?

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)

consideration of patents ... WTF?!?

What is this dubious comment ...

"The consideration of patents, particularly in the US, is a political and profit-driven activity, and often subject to external pressure, including corrupt influence".

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)

Considering the way they go, though, I'd hazard to say that it's entirely correct! I don't think it takes any real POV to begrudgingly agree with it. At least, as a general statement. In the context it does seem to present a POV. Even just taking out the "corrupt influence" part makes it sound much better, though. I think it could be reworked as more of a disclaimer than a discreditation, though I myself don't have the time to ponder it at the moment! Considering your comment is from December, though, maybe there's no big rush ;) Phil Urich 10:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
The statement should be removed, because it is an unsourced opinion, an obvious policy breach. It is not even clear—what does "consideration" mean? The decision to seek, the issuance, or the litigation of patents? --Blainster 17:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Timeline

Clean up and main page the timeline.

[image]J. D. Redding 18:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The introduction doesn't make much sense...

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)

Do it. --Blainster 07:24, 5 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)

Case of Priority Section

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)


Archive 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.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Invention_of_radio/Archive_1"

You are viewing a mobilized version of this site...
View original page here

How do you rate mobile version of this page?

Mobilized by Mowser Mowser