Talk:Guglielmo Marconi/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Interesting Fact????

12.214.126.176 made this edit: Cacey Lamparek did again in 2001 not realizeing it was alredy invented. -- it didn't fit into this article, but it might be an interesting addition SOMEWHERE in wikipedia if it can be expanded and confirmed. TastemyHouse 00:02, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Didn't do it

Bravo for noting his much-ballyhooed transatlantic sig may've been his imagination! It continues to be treated as authentic, including in a (very expensive) Canadian Heritage Minute TV commercial. Trekphiler 07:17, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

This article is not NPOV

The article suggests that Marconi's patent was overturned because of US Military. Maybe we can believe in that when we see actual record, but that does not eliminate another problem - it credits Marconi with invention of radio based on few facts such as that it did not know of the works of others. What Marconi invented was not radio, but radio media and should be credited for that. Radio has already been invented. The top of this page suggests that Marconi has invented "tuning" and called it "syntony". Well, maybe he called it that, but "resonance" and "tuning" to achieve it was there for quite a while (and being done) before he came at it. Example of this.

This article is in urgent need of truth.

--Aleksandar Šušnjar 05:06, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Another interesting site, although second-hand information: More on Nikola Tesla's Priority in the Invention of Radio.

--Aleksandar Šušnjar 05:22, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

The current article:

• uses first person language
• speaks derrogatory of Tesla
• is incorrect in statement that Tesla never demonstrated ...
• is biased in presenting patent-related facts
• fails to mention that patent is not equal to invention but, rather, the approval to market it

--Aleksandar Šušnjar 00:39, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Who invented radio

Maybe its time to move this section to its own article. I came here for a biography, not to read about the dispute. The dispute belongs under Radio or Invention of Radio. The same dispute is in Wright brothers and was split off into its own article: First flying machine. The dispute makes great reading, and can be better handled as its own entry. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 21:58, 21 January 2006 (UTC) What do you think?

Oh no... not the Teslaphiles again. Splitting it off sounds sensible. William M. Connolley 22:36, 21 January 2006 (UTC).

Aleksandar Susnjar mentions the grammatical use of first person in the current article about Marconi. This was done for a good reason. In my comments in the section “Who invented radio?”, I stated that Tesla’s transmitter could inject a large alternating current into the earth from the ground terminal, and: “Whether this earth current would be a better medium for long distance wireless communications than radio waves from a conventional radio transmitter of comparable power and frequency is anyone’s guess. I have never seen a theoretical analysis of this question.”

Although there is a large amount of technical literature about the propagation of radio waves, including, especially at low frequencies, the effects of the induced earth currents that accompany them (e.g., the tilt of the wave front), I have never seen an analysis that specifically addresses the propagation through the earth of the current from the ground terminal, either in the context of Tesla’s system or that of a conventional low frequency radio transmitter with a vertical antenna plus ground. I doubt if such an analysis exists, but since there is no way to be sure, I simply stated that I have never seen one.

Regarding Mr. Susnjar’s other complaints, which may or may not have been directed at my commentary, the distinction between wireless transmission via radio waves, and via electrical conduction through the earth or upper atmosphere, is often lost on Tesla biographers. The latter is the mechanism which Tesla intended to utilize, and the former is the one that his contemporaries developed, and which became the basis of radio today. The following excerpt from the description of Tesla’s American patent number 649,621, dated May 15, 1900 emphasizes the distinction between the two approaches to wireless communication:

“It is to be noted that the phenomenon here involved in the transmission of electrical energy is one of true conduction and is not to be confounded with the phenomena of electrical radiation which have heretofore been observed and which from the very nature and mode of propagation would render practically impossible the transmission of any appreciable amount of energy to such distances as are of practical importance.”

He continues: “What I now claim as my invention is - 1. The combination with a transmitting coil or conductor connected to the ground and to an elevated terminal respectively, and means for producing therein electrical currents or oscillations, of a receiving coil or conductor similarly connected to ground and to an elevated terminal, at a distance from the transmitting-coil and adapted to be excited by currents caused to be propagated from the same by conduction through the intervening natural medium, a secondary conductor in inductive relation to the receiving-conductor and devices for utilizing the current in the circuit of said secondary conductor, as set forth.”

(This long sentence is more easily understood in conjunction with the diagram accompanying the patent, which shows the transmitter basically as a generator that is transformer-coupled to the elevated conductor and ground, and the receiver consisting basically of a similar elevated conductor plus ground, transformer-coupled to a load. The patent description later specifies that the transmitter and receiver are tuned to the same frequency, and that the wires in the secondary coil of the transformer in the transmitter, and the primary coil of the transformer in the receiver are one-quarter wavelength long, producing a standing wave with a voltage maximum at the elevated conductor. If one replaces the elevated conductors, which basically serve as “self-capacitances”, by antennas designed to radiate and receive radio waves, and replaces the receiver load by a radio detector, the diagram would describe a basic low frequency radio system of that era. This similarity probably has added to the confusion between Tesla’s system and conventional radio.)

The patent description continues with further details of the setup, but the excerpt above suffices to show that Tesla was focusing on electrical conduction, in particular through the earth, rather than radiation of radio waves, which he states elsewhere are a waste of energy in a wireless system. (See the reference to Leland Anderson in the main article.) In my opinion, this choice of a different direction from his contemporaries, plus his failure to complete his worldwide wireless station on Long Island, New York in the early 1900’s, relegated his work to a historical dead end. Also, In my opinion, the question of whether his approach had or still has potential can best be settled by a theoretical analysis of the propagation of alternating currents through the earth from a ground terminal. - Contributed by Henry Bradford.

142.177.137.222 22:49, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

(Commenting on "Across Water") - Regarding the frequencies or wavelengths used by the early radio experimenters, by 1901, when Marconi conducted his transatlantic radio experiment, the frequencies he was using had moved down from the UHF range employed by Hertz in his laboratory experiments to hundreds of kilohertz. The wavelength usually claimed by Marconi for the transatlantic experiments at Newfoundland in 1901, and on the SS Philadelphia in 1902, was 366 metres (820 kHz). His intermittently successful transatlantic transmissions from Glace Bay in 1902 - 1904 were believed by his engineer Vyvyan to have been at a wavelength of about 2000 metres (150 kHz), and were confined to the night. Marconi’s quest for reliable day and night transatlantic communications led him to longer wavelengths and lower frequencies, and required building powerful new stations near Glace Bay, Nova Scotia, and Clifden, Ireland, with large land areas to accommodate the longer wavelength antennas. The transatlantic service began between these stations in 1907, at a wavelength of thousands of metres. When the transatlantic service was upgraded in 1913 to a simultaneous two-way (duplex) service, by the addition of receiving stations well separated from the transmitting stations, the wavelengths were 8000 metres (37.5 kHz) west-to-east, and 5500 metres (54.5 kHz) east-to-west.

After World War 1, there were reports of long distances being achieved at short wave frequencies (i.e., HF: 3 to 30 MHz). The reason for this occurring at this time may have been the great improvement in vacuum tubes around the time of World War 1 (1914 - 1918). The Marconi Company opened the first link of the BBC short wave service in 1926, between England and Canada, and other British Empire links soon followed. Marconi then moved from England back to Italy, where he completed the full circle in frequencies by setting up short range UHF communications links.

As suggested in the “Across water” section of the Marconi article, the reception of transatlantic signals at Newfoundland in 1901 at a wavelength of 366 metres (820 kHz) in the middle of the day was very improbable. AM radio listeners would no doubt agree. However, it should be noted that the test signal was not a single “S” in Morse code, but a series of them transmitted repeatedly for hours by the Poldhu station. Marconi recorded in his skimpy notes for December 12, 1901: “Sigs at 12.30, 1.10, and 2.30”. If he really did hear the test signal, it may have been received at short wave (HF) frequencies. The Poldhu spark transmitter was only broadly tuned, and may have radiated significant energy at these frequencies. This possibility is suggested by the fact that Marconi believed he received the signal on his untuned receiver, but he could not receive it on his tuned receiver. On a transatlantic voyage on the SS Philadelphia in 1902, he could only receive the Poldhu transmission in the day less than half the distance between Poldhu and Newfoundland, using a receiver tuned to the Poldhu frequency, which presumably was unchanged. However, he could receive it much further at night, as stated in the “Across water” section of the article. These results are more consistent with modern experience than the 1901 claim. It must have disappointed Marconi to not reproduce what he claimed to have done at Newfoundland, but at least he had realistic expectations when he built his Glace Bay transatlantic station later in 1902. The results also verified that radio waves in this frequency range followed the curvature of the Earth, rather than propagate in straight lines, as was the common belief.

Incidentally, I suspect that the author means that Dr. Belrose simulated the 1901 transatlantic experiment, not reenacted it. It would be difficult today to get permission to put a 46 kilowatt poorly tuned spark transmitter on the air, to say nothing of the expense of reproducing the equipment and antennas. (Contributed by Henry Bradford)

142.177.88.117 21:15, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

The part where it says(paraphrasing) "Many engineers agree that this wouldn't have been possible then, and that it is even impossible now with modern technology and equipment." However, a few sentences later it says that he was sending and recieving transatlantic messages by 1903. Holy Contradiction Batman! uberblue 18:59, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

This doesn't make any sense-"The callsign WCC is still heard over the radio - from Globe Wireless's automated email by radio system from a new location in Maryland. It was sold during the breakup of RCA in the 1990s to MCI and was finally shut down in 1996."

How is it still heard over the radio when it was shut down. And why was finally added? Was it a scourge upon society that nobody could take down?<sarcasm> I think not....

uberblue 19:07, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Marconi's British patents

A couple of sources [1] and [2], list this patent information: British patent No. 7777, "Improvements in apparatus for wireless telegraphy", patented 1900 as his syntonic tuning patent. But the patent number is lower than his British patent No.12039 filed June 2, 1896, issued in March, 1897. Can someone resolve this apparent discrepancy? --Blainster 21:10, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I beleve that the early British patents had a number and "year". So in 1866, a patent would be 3333/1866. That may be a answer, but I'm not sure. 204.56.7.1

The patent process takes time to award it. When was it filed? 134.193.168.249 20:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Removed

RM: "Popov gave the first public demonstration of the radio as a tool, in 1895". Tesla public lecture was before. 134.193.168.249 20:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Stopping Cars

I've read somewhere that Marconi made an apparatus that could stop car engines remotely. And that he took Mussolini for a ride demonstrating the invention on passing cars. Supposedly the invention is lost and no one knows how he did it. Is this just a myth or is it fact? If it's fact I think it deserves a mention. 80.202.240.192 14:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Be careful you aren't plaguarizing Eric Barnouw's Tower in Babel.

Cultural depictions of Guglielmo Marconi

I've started an approach that may apply to Wikipedia's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information. I started that last year while I raised Joan of Arc to featured article when I created Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which has become a featured list. Recently I also created Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great out of material that had been deleted from the biography article. Since cultural references sometimes get deleted without discussion, I'd like to suggest this approach as a model for the editors here. Regards, Durova 19:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Disputed

Marconi took the designs of others and claimed them for himself. Only later did he grudgingly admitted to some of his theft. 204.56.7.1 22:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

No mention of Tesla's lectures distributed in Eroupe. 204.56.7.1 22:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Headline text

this was very helpful for my social studies homework. it also helpe me on my project. thank you so much.--66.153.236.138 02:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC) annomaus

Earth to act as a waveguide resonator for the surface wave signal??

In terms of long-distance propagation of radio waves, this is not true. It was erroneously thought at the time that Marconi would have given this speech that the radio waves travelled long distances via a surface wave (the Zenneck surface wave, having been described by both Zenneck and Sommerfeld in 1907 and 1909). While this surface wave does exist, it is evanescent and dies out before propagating a great distance. It was not until 1926 when Briet and Tuve showed experimentally that the propagation was due to reflections off of the ionosphere that the true nature of long distance propagation became widely accepted. So Marconi may have made this statement and for his initial tests on his family estate the surface wave could have been the propagation mechanism. However, one of Marconi's great successes was proving the feasibility of long range radio broadcasts and this statement seems to give the reader the wrong idea on how these long distance propagations actually work. So I think this statement probably should be reworded for better clarity. Take a look at Collin's paper in the IEEE Antennas Propag. Mag. "Hertzian Dipole Radiating Over a Lossy Earth or Sea: ..." in vol 46, no. 2 of April 2004.Born2bwire 23:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

That is only true for higher frequencies than Marconi was using. At the frequencies that Marconi was using (especially early on), the Zenneck surface wave applies. J. D. Redding 01:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Some scientists?

I think this is alluding to Tesla ...

Because of this, Marconi had not fully confirmed the Newfoundland claims, although he did successfully prove that radio signals could be sent for hundreds of kilometres, in spite of the fact that some scientists had believed they were essentially limited to line-of-sight distances.

Indeed Tesla (there is a image about this) understood that the low power hertzian transverse UHF did travel at straight lines ... but the frequencies that Marconi was using was not the HF or UHF that Hertz experimented with. (note: the HF bounce off the ionosphere was not investigated later ... after Marconi's work ... the Alexanderson alternator (state of the art at the time; time and place is important) could not produce such frequencies to bounce them off the ionosphere ... )

Maybe some work on this line is needed. J. D. Redding 02:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC) (ps., also power levels of transmission increased more later on ... )

Brean Down to Flatholm

"Bristol Channel from Lavernock Point, South Wales to Brean Down"

I am making an edit to this statement, as it is untrue. Marconi broadcast the first radio signal over water from Lavernock Point to Flat holm Island and NOT Brean Down. --Niall9 16:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Patent (cont.)

Marconi was a common thief who should be praised in the same breath as James Burke and Thomas Edison. He may be credited as the first man to have achieved controlled radio transmission but the work was Tesla's.

[[3]] --Elliott Fontain

Popov

I can find this name only once in the whole article. It's interesting, there's nowhere written who really invented those things, and whom Marconi has stolen his great inventions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.223.104.34 (talk) 15:53, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Popov cites Tesla as the originator ...

Who did Marconi borrow from? Alot of people ... primarily Tesla, but many others' works did he use too ... J. D. Redding 14:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Uk2pnd2001.jpg

The image Image:Uk2pnd2001.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --00:59, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Unreferenced Good Article

This article is listed for consideration and, with luck, work by the Wikipedia:WikiProject Unreferenced GA. Badbilltucker 16:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC) Nobody has metioned that Marconi lost his right eye in 1912 in a car accident. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.225.38.243 (talk) 16:01, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Did Marconi study with or work together with Nikola Tesla?

Is there anything to the claims that Marconi studied with or worked under / together with Nikola Tesla?

How did Marconi suddenly get to make, use and understand 17 of teslas patents if not? There is obviously a lot of documentation that Tesla was first since he was also awarded the credit for having invented radio in 1943 by the US. We must presume then that it is far more likely that Marconi _could_ have copied Tesla's work. I gather industrial espionage was nothing new at the time, and the corporate war between Edison and Morgans Westinghouse is a well known phenomena.

"Nikola Tesla, a rival in transatlantic transmission, stated after being told of Marconi's reported transmission that "Marconi [... was] using seventeen of my patents." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.215.52.136 (talk) 07:13, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I dispute the fact that the US Supreme Court found Tesla to be the Inventor of radio

this is the summary of the US supreme Court findings...and NOWHERE it says that Tesla is the inventor of Radio:

U.S. Supreme Court Marconi Wireless Tel. Co. v. United States, 320 U.S. 1 (1943) Marconi Wireless Tel. Co. v. United States

No. 369

Argued April 9, 12, 1943

Decided June 21, 1943*

320 U.S. 1

Syllabus

1. The broad claims of the Marconi Patent No. 763,772, for improvements in apparatus for wireless telegraphy -- briefly, for a structure and arrangement of four high-frequency circuits with means of independently adjusting each so that all four may be brought into electrical resonance with one another -- held invalid because anticipated. P. 320 U. S. 38.

Marconi showed no invention over Stone (Patent No. 714,756) by making the tuning of his antenna circuit adjustable, or by using Lodge's (Patent No. 609, 154) variable inductance for that purpose. Whether Stone's patent involved invention is not here determined.

2. Merely making a known element of a known combination adjustable by a means of adjustment known to the art, when no new or unexpected result is obtained, is not invention. P. 320 U. S. 32.

3. As between two inventors, priority of invention will be awarded to the one who by satisfying proof can show that he first conceived of the invention. P. 320 U. S. 34.

4. Commercial success achieved by the later inventor and patentee cannot save his patent from the defense of anticipation by a prior inventor. P. 320 U. S. 35.

Page 320 U. S. 2

5. In the exercise of its appellate power, this Court may consider any evidence of record which, whether or not called to the attention of the court below, is relevant to, and may affect the correctness of its decision sustaining or denying any contention which a party has made before it. P. 320 U. S. 44.

6. Although the interlocutory decision of the Court of Claims in this case that Claim 16 of Marconi Patent No. 763,772 was valid and infringed was appealable, the decision was not final until the conclusion of the accounting; hence, the court did not lack power at any time prior to entry of its final judgment at the close of the accounting to reconsider any portion of its decision and reopen any part of the case, and it was free in its discretion to grant a reargument based either on all the evidence then of record or only the evidence before the court when it rendered its interlocutory decision, or to reopen the case for further evidence. P. 320 U. S. 47.

7. The judgment of the Court of Claims holding valid and infringed Claim 16 of Marconi Patent No. 763,772 is vacated and remanded in order that that court may determine whether to reconsider its decision in the light of the Government's present contention that Claim 16, as construed by the Court of Claims, was anticipated by the patents to Pupin, No. 640,516, and Fessenden, No. 706,735. P. 320 U. S. 48.

8. A defendant in a patent infringement suit who has added noninfringing and valuable improvements which contributed to the making of the profits is not liable for benefits resulting from such improvements. P. 320 U. S. 50.

9. Disclosure by publication more than two years before application for a patent bars any claim for a patent for an invention embodying the published disclosure. P. 320 U. S. 57.

10. Invalidity in part of a patent defeats the entire patent unless the invalid portion was claimed through inadvertence, accident, or mistake, and without any fraudulent or deceptive intention, and is disclaimed without unreasonable neglect or delay. P. 320 U. S. 57.

11. Fleming Patent No. 803,864 held invalid by reason of an improper disclaimer. P. 320 U. S. 58.

The specifications plainly contemplated the use of the claimed device with low as well as high frequency currents, and the patent was invalid for want of invention so far as applicable to use with low frequency currents; the claim was not inadvertent, and the delay of ten years in making the disclaimer was unreasonable.

12. That the patentee's claim for more than he had invented was not inadvertent, and that his delay in making disclaimer was unreasonable, were questions of fact; but, since the Court of Claims in

Page 320 U. S. 3

its opinion in this case plainly states its conclusions a to them, and those conclusions are supported by substantial evidence, its omission to make formal findings of fact is immaterial. P. 320 U. S. 58.

13. The disclaimer statutes are applicable to one who acquires a patent under an assignment of the application. P. 320 U. S. 59.

99 Ct.Cls. 1, affirmed in part.

Writs of certiorari, 317 U.S. 620, on cross-petitions to review a judgment in a suit against the United States to recover damages for infringement of patents. See 81 Ct.Cls. 741. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Altes2009 (talk • contribs) 08:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the above is very relevant. There is no concensus for errors. Saying that Marconi's patent was invalid is not saying that Tesla invented anything. This was beaten to death at Invention of radio a while ago. I've reverted the claim that the Supreme Court awarded radio to Tesla like an Emmy. The whole thing was incredibly beside the point, by the time the court ruled Tesla was dead, Marconi was dead, the Marconi company was well-established and no-one ever sent a Teslagram anywhere. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that Tesla who improved some already-existing devices and who made many unproved claims has became a sort of childish isterical cult, boosted by ignorance about the real facts behind the many alleged invention wrongly attributed to him. The radio invention is not an exception and Marconi pays the toll for being the competitor of what has became the most fashionable and to my opinion overrated scientist ever. --Magnagr (talk) 21:52, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Archiving

Does anyone object to me setting up automatic archiving for this page using MiszaBot? Unless otherwise agreed, I would set it to archive threads that have been inactive for 30 days and keep the last ten threads.--Oneiros (talk) 17:32, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I object. There's only been a couple dozen edits in the last year. 30 days is absurdly short. Can you set it to something like 300 days to better reflect the current rate of activity on the page? This talk page is hardly overlength by modern Wikipedia standards. I prefer manual archiving, bots are too ignorant not to save vandalism. --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:12, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Do we really have discussions that go on with pauses of more than 30 days? A longer period would be no problem, though.--Oneiros (talk) 19:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

We get new editors all the time and I think it's important for them to see what recent discussions have been going on; once a page gets archived, old solved issues may get re-raised because no new editors can see them. Most editors are new editors. If you don't think a year is appropriate, make it at least 90 days - article improvement moves at a leisurely pace, people go on holidays and don't look at an article for a couple of weeks, etc. I don't think automatic archiving is alwys the best solution; if you'll give me some time I'll get around to taking some of the old resolved discussions and archiving them. --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Irish mother

If his mother was born in Ireland, he should be described as an "Italian-Irish inventor." His British connections were crucial to his getting contact with Post Office authorities and the military to conduct tests and development of his early crude devices, and to the launching of his company. His grandfather was the distiller Andrew Jameson of County Wessex, Scotland (who had migrated from Scotland to Ireland.) Aitkin says (p 210) "There were brief visits to England- young Guglielmo even attended Rugby for a brief time - and some reconciliation was reached with her parents." When the Italian government would not buy his invention, therefore, it was natural for Marconi to go with his mother to the UK to try and find support. Aitkin says (p220) "In Britain there were important assets of family membership that would not have been available in Paris, Berlin, or New York." The Jameson and Haig distiller relatives were Scottish-Irish and had money to invest in the Marconi company. (BBC series "Days That Shook the World", Season 1, Episode 11) Marconi used his British family connections to get hearings from government and military leaders which might not have happened elsewhere. His British cousin Jameson Davis arranged his introduction to Preece of the British Post Office, and later proposed the private company Wireless Telegraph and Signal Company in July 1897, which snatched the patent rights away from the British government. His British relatives put up the capital for the company. No money came from Italian relatives. (Aitkin p 224).Edison 15:30, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

But him remains Italian: simply he was born in Italy. Leonardo da Vinci work and died in France, but nobody can think he is French... --151.47.69.188 14:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I guess this raises the always interesting question about how we view people's nationality. The Kaiser's mother was English (Victoria, Princess Royal) but do we ever think of him as Anglo-German; Churchill's mother was American (Jennie Jerome) so do we refer to him as an Anglo-American ??? Just some thoughts, --mervyn 19:46, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Marconi was also a convinced Italian fascist, he served in the Italian military, a senator during the regime and else. Given the nationalistic stance of fascism and Marconi's adherence to it it is practically doubtless to state that he saw himself essentially as an Italian, at most he used his Irish-British connections for his purposes and nothing more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.85.104.109 (talk) 22:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC) Taylo4321 (talk) 13:30, 10 May 2010 (UTC)marconi died of several heart attacksTaylo4321 (talk) 13:30, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Sidenote about Tesla, radio and murder

What about the possibility that actually Tesla invented the method which later became the radio (which doesn't imply "inventing the radio as a system", mind you), and Marconi actually have stolen the idea and the research, and happened to poison Tesla? What if someone have reopened the case and re-examined the material and proofs? No, I didn't really asked anything. :-) --grin ✎ 10:01, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Marconi -- Righi

All the writings on education by Prof. Righi are pure fiction. Marconi itselfe named Prof. Rosa as his master. Marconi had talks with Righi upon wireless, yes, but only for 'small talk'. 1896 Marconi left Italy for quit a time. One can imagine what the feeling of Righi was, when Marconi got the Nobel Prize and Righi not, which was nominated several times. If we want to have a good wikipedia this part of the article must be revised! -Jotge (talk) 06:59, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Patent

You seem to misunderstand what a patent meant in the 1890s. Although the idea has been bastardised now, back then you could only patent an artificial "process, machine, article of manufacture, or composition of matter" -- indeed until 1880 you had to provide a working model of it along with your patent application. Marconi didn't patent "radio" in the broad sense of all electromagnetic radiation phenomena, which would indeed have been ridiculous; he patented a system for actually using it as a practical form of communication, and presented a practical, long range device for doing so which was in full scale production and first commerical operation in the UK by 1898 (before Tesla's radio patent was even filed). There was a certain degree of resentment not just from Tesla, but also the many other workers in the field, because very little of Marconi's first patent was truly ground breaking. But it was all much, much better than their scratchings, and it did indeed include some new science. It was Marconi who discovered that you got better range by shielding various parts of the receiver from interference; that range was proportional to the square root of antenna height; that you could produce a directional beam by placing the antenna at the focus of a metallic parabola; and who invented coherer designs an order of magnitude more sensitive than Lodge's original design. And it was Marconi who invented "syntony" (what we would nowdays call "tuning"), invented the concept of radio channels and built a device that was able to operate with multiple channels simultaneously, etc. etc. Marconi's patent specifically says "My invention relates in great measure to the manner in which the above apparatus is made and connected together." That is the sort of thing you could patent in the 1890s, and none of the other contenders for the crown had anything remotely as good before him, nor indeed for several years afterward. An interesting overview is at [4] (PDF, 1.15 MB) Securiger 17:31, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

With most major technological devices, the claim that "person A invented device B" is usually at least an oversimplification, and radio is no exception. What we call "radio" today bears little resemblance to the devices that came out in Marconi's time. As far back as Faraday and Hertz in the early 1800s, it was clear to most scientists that wireless communication was possible, and many people worked on developing many devices and improvements. The first wireless telegraphy devices started appearing in the 1860s. Edison, for example, patented one in 1885 for use by trains. Marconi's patent in 1896 was not a particularly remarkable development at the time (it primarily made use of the "coherer" invented by Branly in 1892), though his later contributions were significant improvements. Marconi and Braun shared the 1909 Nobel for "contributions to the development of vireless telegraphy". The first human voice ever transmitted wirelessly was by Canadian-American scientist Reginald Aubrey Fessenden.

A good source is the book Syntony and Spark: the Origins of Radio, Hugh G. J. Aitken, ISBN 0471018163. --Lee Daniel Crocker

I removed a comment here that replaced the common misattribution of Marconi with the misattribution of Tesla, which was no improvement (see Lee Daniel Crocker/The Myth of the Lone Inventor. Also, the common word for someone who receives a prize is "recipient" rather than "receiver", but for some reason I hesitated before replacing it in this case... :-)

I have no problem calling him the "father of radio" since he gave us a working commercial system, but in fairness, the patent was eventually awarded to Tesla.

In fairness, the US patent was eventually awarded to Tesla, at a time Marconi Co. was trying to sue the USG for non-payment of license fees; every other country where it was disputed upheld Marconi's priority. Securiger 17:31, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

So, in essence, you have no problem calling a wrong person "father of the radio", and thus continuing this charade about Marconi, when just about all his patents were overturned in the US and Supreme Court had confirmed that it is Dr. Nikola Tesla who is the real inventor? And you know that fact? How is that NOT a personal opinion, which is contrary to the TRUTH and the rules (not that wikipedia has any academic standing to speak of) of this joke of the "encyclopedia"...? This is openly suicidal comment.

And, by the way, another genius here somewhere wrote that "only in the US Marcony had lost all his patents. In every other country they were upheld..." What a genius...!!!! First, Dr. Nikola Tesla only had to prove he was right in one country - the country he, (and his competitor) had his patents registered first. That, by the virtue of the international patent protection treaties, solves the rest of the word operating under the same convention. Second, Dr. Tesla did not need to go around the world chasing Marconi's fake patents. You only need to prove that you are the first in one country, and that is by default the country you have registered patent first. Even if a country is not a member of the convention and treaty on intellectual property and patent protection, which means that the overturned patent may still be registered, the patent is automatically invalid because it has beed cancelled in the country of the preceding patent.

The "anti" Tesla posters, and those who post for the sake of their primitive and minuscule egos (just so they can show something to their neighbours and say "I did that"), should really go back to elementary school and start over. And this time try to memorise at least something... "I know it all" inflexible pretenders who write nonsense like the above examples are destroying (and demonstrating why wikipedia is just a bad joke) what little of seriousness this wikipedia once may have had but lost long time ago.

It is impossible to debate the factual truth with self-appointed "editors" who can delete whatever doesn't suit them. How is this a "public" project is beyond intelligent comprehension.

Diego Rivera —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.213.162.163 (talk) 10:58, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't Nathan Stubblefield deserve at least a mention here? Brutannica 00:55, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 09:02, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)) Do you trust the text there?

"...and a power of 100 times more than any radio signal previously produced." I would prefer this sentence had an actual number that wasn't a multiple of some other unknown quantity.--Jsnow 05:16, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Number researched and added, with references. And I have to say, Gosh. Oh. My. Gosh. In 1901 his Poldhu transmitter had a peak pulse output of several tens of megawatts and a maximum continuous throughput of 35 kW. This is a CW signal, so it is keyed, and his keying apparatus is trunking that power on and off every time a dit or dah is sent! Pretty impressive for 1901. Securiger 15:15, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This article is factually wrong

This article is factually wrong and it is favourable to a fascist who was also well known in his time, and still is today, as a thief.

One fact that is not mentioned in this useless and incorrect article is that Marconi worked in Dr. Tesla's lab for a while. Tesla actually had a nice opinion of him in the beginning, but it took no time for Marconi to build up himself a disrepute and fall out with Dr. tesla for his laziness and inability to complete the tasks. This has been verified in a whole number of sources which are available to real researchers, not resident wannabees with no knowledge and power of "editors" to write what they feel like, disrespecting the truth and the facts.

Read what did Edison, Dr. Tesla's opponent, have to say about him, and you will see that if Dr. Tesla said that Marconi was a thief, Marconi was a thief.

Better yet, go learn knitting and leave the writing of the history to real historians. You all suck at this anyway.

New information added

1) The 1895 transmission was 1.5 miles=2.4 km. see Nobel Prize site 2) The Us supreme court was not called upon to give a decision regarding the paternity of the radio invention 3)“[…]Marconi's reputation as the man who first achieved successful radio transmission rests on his original patent” and “[..] To find in 1943 that what Marconi did really did not promote the progress of science because it had been anticipated is more than a mirage of hindsight”. These are words present in the verdict, not mine. 4)[…]since his idea was to make the ether a conductor for long distances by using extremely high voltage, 20, 000,000 to 30,000,000 volts, and extremely high altitudes, 30,000 to 40, 000 feet or more, to secure transmission from aerial to aerial. Balloons, with wires attached reaching to the ground” This plant which was never realized is the product of a sick mind. If u think that tesla is the inventor of the radio considering the description of this technological monstruosity, i suggest u to deal only with gardening articles !!! This is the description of tesla's plant in the verdict, not mine, anyway also this comment is sourced 5) Indeed, in the Marconi apparatus it was not about to generate, as in the Tesla experience, high level voltages at high frequency with the presence of micro-current but alternating voltages at a set frequency and polarization with significant current levels. Furthermore, in the Tesla's system the primary winding was made up of a few turn of a tick winding while the secondary was composed of millions of rounds of a thin winding. With the Marconi apparatus, the primary was realized by adopting the right number of turns to establish the right wave length of the condenser, and the secondary was made up of a few turns in order to be tuned with the radiation resistance of the antenna. Without all these expedients the low antenna's efficiency would have been too low to allow any long distance communication. In addition, only with the Marconi's system could the vertical antenna change wave lengths by just adding inductances and only his receiver could be switched into transmitter and viceversa (it could work in duplex) I've detailed u the technoly difference between the 2 plants, what do u want more? This deescription is perfectly sourced, buy my references and study them before spitting sentences. 6). Economic, political and military interests have been the main reasons for hostility against Marconi perfectly sourced, read them 7)Despite all this, the most prominent figures in the field of radio transmission at the time such as Pupin, Steinmetz and Preece had always enthusiastically hailed Marconi as the inventor of the radio read what these people said about Marconi. u can find their opinion about Marconi in my sources, u've just to read them 8)This scientific legitimacy was confirmed by the success of his radio system which proved to be the only technology capable of transmitting long distance radio signals making possible a revolution in global communication.[33] about this point I've just put 1 source but I could add many more

THIS IS THE ARTICLE I'VE FOUND (READ HEREINAFTER THE DENIGRATORY PASSAGES I'VE FOUND AGAINST MARCONI). WOULD U CONSIDER IT BASED ON A NPOV??? THIS IS NOT AN ARTCILE ABOUT MARCONI BUT AGAINST MARCONI (AND OF COURSE PRO TESLA). MY CONTRIBUTIONS ARE BASED ON WELL REFERENCED SOURCES:THEY ARE NOT MY OPINIONS...

- This was not a new idea—numerous investigators had been exploring wireless telegraph technologies for over 50 years, but none had proven commercially successful. Marconi did not discover any new and revolutionary principle in his wireless-telegraph system, but rather he assembled and improved a number of components, unified and adapted them to his system

- Marconi's late-1895 transmission of signals was for around a mile (1.6 km). This was small compared to Tesla's early-1895 transmissions of up to 50 miles. For more see "Nikola Tesla On His Work with Alternating Currents and Their Application to Wireless Telegraphy, Telephony, and Transmission of Power", Leland I. Anderson, Twenty First Century Books, 2002, pp. 26-27.

- According to the Proceedings of the United States Naval Institute, the Marconi instruments were tested around 1899 and the tests concerning his wireless system found that the "[...] coherer, principle of which was discovered some twenty years ago, [was] the only electrical instrument or device contained in the apparatus that is at all new

-The first stage operated at lower voltage and provided the energy for the second stage to spark at a higher voltage. Nikola Tesla, a rival in transatlantic transmission, stated after being told of Marconi's reported transmission that "Marconi [... was] using seventeen of my patents

-Marconi began to build high-powered stations on both sides of the Atlantic to communicate with ships at sea, in competition with other inventors. In 1904 a commercial service was established to transmit nightly news summaries to subscribing ships, which could incorporate them into their on-board newspapers. A regular transatlantic radio-telegraph service was finally begun on 17 October 1907[29] between Clifden Ireland and Glace Bay, but even after this the company struggled for many years to provide reliable communication.

-Marconi's work built upon the discoveries of numerous other scientists and experimenters. His "two-circuit" equipment, consisting of a spark-gap transmitter plus a coherer-receiver, was similar to those used by other experimenters, and in particular to that employed by Oliver Lodge in a series of widely reported demonstrations in 1894. There were claims that Marconi was able to signal for greater distances than anyone else when using the spark-gap and coherer combination, but these have been disputed (notably by Tesla).

-When Marconi transmitted signals across the Atlantic on December 12, 1901, Tesla himself commented: "Marconi is a good fellow. Let him continue. He is using 17 of my patents.

-The Fascist regime in Italy credited Marconi with the first improvised arrangement in the development of radio.[35] There was controversy whether his contribution was sufficient to deserve patent protection, or if his devices were too close to the original ones developed by Hertz, Popov, Branley, Tesla, and Lodge to be patentable. -While Marconi did pioneering demonstrations for the time, his equipment was limited by being essentially untuned, which greatly restricted the number of spark-gap radio transmitters which could operate simultaneously in a geographical area without causing mutually disruptive interference. (Continuous-wave transmitters were naturally more selective and less prone to this deficiency). Marconi addressed this defect with a patent application for a much more sophisticated "four-circuit" design, which featured two tuned-circuits at both the transmitting and receiving antennas. This was issued as British patent number 7,777 on 26 April 1900. However, this patent came after significant earlier work had been done on electrical tuning by Nikola Tesla and Oliver Lodge. (As a defensive move, in 1911 the Marconi Company purchased the Lodge-Muirhead Syndicate, whose primary asset was Oliver Lodge's 1897 tuning patent. This followed a 1911 court case in which the Marconi company was ruled to have illegally used the techniques described under Lodge's tuning patent.) Thus, the "four-sevens" patent and its equivalents in other countries was the subject of numerous legal challenges, with rulings which varied by jurisdiction, from full validation of Marconi's tuning patent to complete nullification.

-In 1943, a lawsuit regarding Marconi's numerous other radio patents was resolved in the United States. The court decision was based on the prior work conducted by others, including Nikola Tesla, Oliver Lodge, and John Stone Stone, from which some of Marconi patents (such as U.S. Patent 763,772) stemmed. The U. S. Supreme Court stated that, -Over the years, the Marconi companies gained a reputation for being technically conservative, in particular by continuing to use inefficient spark-transmitter technology, which could only be used for radiotelegraph operations, long after it was apparent that the future of radio communication lay with continuous-wave transmissions, which were more efficient and could be used for audio transmissions. Somewhat belatedly, the company did begin significant work with continuous-wave equipment beginning in 1915, after the introduction of the oscillating vacuum tube (valve). In 1920, employing a vacuum tube transmitter, the Chelmsford Marconi factory was the location for the first entertainment radio broadcasts in the United Kingdom—one of these featured Dame Nellie Melba. In 1922 regular entertainment broadcasts commenced from the Marconi Research Centre at Writtle

-Later in life, Marconi was an active Italian Fascist[48] and an apologist for their ideology and actions such as the attack by Italian forces in Ethiopia Magnagr (talk) 22:38, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

The addition by Magnagr seems well sourced to me. Why has it been reverted. The current source is far more suspect. The source for 1.5 miles says, 'In 1895 he began laboratory experiments at his father's country estate at Pontecchio where he succeeded in sending wireless signals over a distance of one and a half miles', this seems clear enough to me. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:03, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

The addition, and its reversion, is not limited to this single item. It includes an overwhelming amount of other "new information" involving major changes and issues such as balance, neutrality vs. partisanship, reliable sourcing, etc. Previous discussions, here and at Talk:Radio, have failed to achieve a consensus for making these changes, overall. Hertz1888 (talk) 10:30, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Usually consensus is reached after a discussion. I was invited to explain my points in the Discussion section in the Radio article. Answers to my observations after being posted for 20 days? ZERO. So Hertz1888 don't say that consensus was not achieved, you just fear the truth about Marconi, Tesla and the radio and regularly obstracize any sourced information which doesn't suit your POV (Tesla invented the radio and Marconi was just a fraudster) which is just an historic monstruosity. Unfortunately all the articles regarding radio, Tesla or Marconi are managed by a group of people that doesn't allow any contribution going against the "mainstream ideology". This is scandalous since wikipedia should be a source of free information and not a source of free censorship! My contribution is perfectly sourced with rigorous references, I have the same right as you to add my contribution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magnagr (talk • contribs) 12:16, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

You are bordering on incivility, and failing to assume good faith. Don't tell me what I fear, or what suits my POV, which I have carefully refrained from expressing. As WP editors we are obliged to follow rules of reliable sourcing, neutrality, etc., and are not here to advocate our own personal viewpoints. You are not exempt from these standards even if you are the only person in the world in possession of The Truth. As for the 20-day period, consensus is the preferred way to deal with contentious changes, and can take time. Your proposed changes, in essence, were previously discussed and failed to gain consensus. Please sign your posts on the talk page itself, not in the edit summary. Hertz1888 (talk) 13:49, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Good faith?? Imagine an article about the Wright brother saying: well, they didn't invent nothing new since the wings and the propeller had already been invented or that Mr Benz didn't invent the car because the internal combustion engine and the wheels had already been invented by someone else. Imagine the same article continuing with the only purpose to hurl mud at Benz. Would you consider it NPOV? Why among thousands of inventors only Marconi deserves it? Maybe because he was in competition with your superhero? My truth is that one shared by the official Nobel prize comittee, by the IEEE, by the most important scientists in the field of telecomunication, by the official history, by the evidence of factsMagnagr (talk) 15:11, 9 August 2011 (UTC).

You are missing the point completely. Assuming good faith is in regard to other editors' intentions. You have no idea who my superhero is, or whether I have one. Don't count on a further reply from me. Hertz1888 (talk) 15:28, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Magnagr, there is no need to attack Hertz1888, he, like me, is an independent editor interested in improving WP according to WP policy. We have both taken a stand against the extreme Teslaphiles in the past but this does not mean that we support Marconiphiles. We should all work together to improve the article based on what is said in reliable sources. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:26, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll give my two cents and like Hertz1888, this shall be my only comment as well. Magnagr has a long history of enforcing his own personal agenda to articles such as Induction motor, Radio, Nikola Tesla, AC motor, this article, and countless others. I know because he's been argumentative with the same people, Hertz1888, MrOllie, and myself included for well over a year. He simply cuts and pastes text that he finds from his dozens of online sources, even when his questionable references blatantly contradict what established and reliable sources already in the articles mentioned above say otherwise.

My second point is this. What does Nikola Tesla have to do with an article on Guglielmo Marconi? This article is about Marconi's accomplishments, his life, etc. If people want to learn about the controversy surrounding Marconi and Tesla, then they should have the option of going to a more appropriate and suitable article such as Invention of radio to find such patent disputes. Tesla was merely only one of several who Marconi knowingly and unknowingly copied and used prior art from in his further development of radio.

My third and final point is this. Apparently Magnagr doesn't seem to think that others haven't caught on tp the fact that he frequently uses another Wikipedia user name under the same IP address (Altes2009). While Magnagr no longer uses that user name to edit articles such as radio, Guglielmo Marconi, etc, he had done so in the past.

I am basically at the point that I no longer care. He incessantly disrupts the intellectual integrity of articles that already have been established with broad viewpoint and concensus, only to add his own NPOV in order to contradict and twist what Marconi did and did not do. So yes, I am at the point that I may indeed just retire from Wikipedia. This was supposed to be a place to learn and apparently, it has become more like a wrestling match of keyboard warriors.Yoganate79 (talk) 16:58, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Dear Yoganate79 I thought I was the only melodramatic one around, but I see that you can do better than me. First of all I don't simply cut and paste as you insinuate, as well as I don't use other Wikipedia user name, I just use my username Magnagr, that's it. I suggest you to put a limit to your vivid fantasy. Read all the passages that I stressed about Marconi's article and tell me if any other inventor in wikipedia has the same amount of critics, doubts, negative description as Marconi has. This is an incredibly unbalanced article whose only purpose is to delegitimate the figure of Marconi, also a child could realize it. I agree with you: what does Tesla have to do with Marconi, so why he is mentioned so many times in the Marconi's biography ? It seems more the biography of Tesla than that one of Marconi. Do you want me to rewrite the Tesla article in the same way? Do you really think that the untouchable was the inventor of all the thing is credited for, do you think that there was not prior art before him? Is this mentioned in his biography, is Tesla treated in the same way as Marconi is?

Thank for remembering my observations about the AC motors, it could be considered a case study. No other scientist or inventor in the history has the privilege to get the paternity of an invention just because he writes in his autobiography: well, I invented this thing in this year and you have to accept it, all this without the evidence of a patent, a drawing, a model, a public demonstration, but for Tesla this can be tolerated. I just stressed this fact and this has suddenly became "desruption of intellectual integrity".

I don't make up things, my references are there and you can check them. I'm still waiting for the update of the distance of the 1895 Marconi's transmission, just remembering you that the questionable references is the official Nobel prize website. My references are not questionable, they are as much authoritative as yours and they deserve respect. Surely I would never write in a reference comments like:" Marconi's late-1895 transmission of signals was for around a mile (1.6 km). This was small compared to Tesla's early-1895 transmissions of up to 50 miles". But of course is a my obsession that this article is against Marconi and pro Tesla.

Finally, I don't know your role in the writing of this article, but I know your role in the constant, provocative, unfair censorship of all my contributions to this and other articles. Considering that this article as well as other such as: invention of radio, history of radio, radio, AC motors, Induction motors are read by a multitude of people around the world every day, you bear a great responsability for the spread of distort informations regarding the history of science and technology.

No offence, I know that most of the editors spend a great deal of energy and passion for wikipedia, but if the results achieved are article like this one is better that wikipedia re-think seriously about the way its content is elaborated and offered to the world. Magnagr (talk) 20:27, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I suggest that we all try to work together to improve this article slowly, bit by bit. I agree that Magnagr's reference for the distance is better than the current one, so how about we change the distance to 1.5 miles for a start? Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:16, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Dear Martin Hogbin, Hertz1888 and Yoganate79 don't want to mingle with scoundrel like me, let's hope to have the opinions of other authors. Magnagr (talk) 22:50, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Moving on

I have changed the distance for early transmission back to 1.5 miles as shown in the source, which I think is more reliable than the original one. Does anyone disagree? Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:29, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

The article does seem to contain some odd wording that seems to result from the Marconi-Tesla battle that has played out in some other articles. This article is about Marconi who undoubtedly, and in common with may other scientists and pioneers, built on the work of earlier experimenters. I do not think that there is any reason why Tesla should have any special place in this article. The article should be written about Marconi and in a neutral manner, neither glorifying nor discrediting him. I plan to go through the article and slowly change the odd bits of pointy wording to make them more neutral and encyclopedic. Please comment if you think I am getting it wrong. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:29, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

The following sentence is deceitful and to my opinion has to be cancelled : "...what made Marconi more successful than any other was his ability to commercialize radio and its associated equipment...." so why he didn't get the Nobel Prize for economy instead of physics? Marconi built a brand new technology, he was the first one being able to send long distance radiotransmission. For many years no other scientist was able to reproduce his results. His life was devoted to science and not to commerce.

The economic success of his plant was a consequence of his scientific succeess. Marconi became rich because all the governemenmt around the world bought his apparatus,

the only one working, should we put the blame on him for this? Magnagr (talk) 11:30, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

We need to base what we write on what is said in reliable secondary/tertiary sources rather than our personal opinions. I agree that the sentence you quote is rather strongly and pointedly worded and think it should be toned down unless it is very well sourced. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:56, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Having looked at one of the sources I would say that it supports the fact that Marconi used the designs of others and that he was successful in business, however, I do not think the tone of the sentence in the article matches that of the source. perhaps we could reword it in a more neutral way. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:34, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I've other sources with different opinions regarding the originality of Marconi's system. Most of the invention are based on the work of others, it's quite strange that this is stressed only for Marconi. Also Lodge and Tesla used previous prior art for their patents on wireless, by adopting this way of thinking we should consider only Hertz as the father of radio. It is quite strange that an unknown 21 years became suddenly world famous just because was able to copy things invented by others. We should understand why, if everything had already been invented, none was able to create a radio system capable of sending long distance radio transmission before Marconi, and why, despite the Marconi's patents were disclosed to the world, none was able to reproduce the same results obtained by Marconi for years.

Anyway, I agree with Martin Hogbin, the sentence is too harsh and, at least, has to be rethinked. Magnagr (talk) 19:45, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

One of the main problems that I see with that sentence is that it shows using the work of others in a negative light. The reason that academics publish work is so that others may make use of it, including those with more practical or commercial interests. Anyone today is free to use published academic work for the benefit of their own business or personal interests. Even the work and inventions of other businesses can be used if not protected by intellectual property rights.

Marconi did, no doubt, do his homework and studied as much of the work of others as he could. He then used this knowledge to help him to design practical systems that succeeded where others failed. I think something that makes this clear would be a better reflection of the cited sources. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:41, 10 August 2011 (UTC)