Talk:Invention of radio/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

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:

1. 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.
2. discrediting - statements like "... but the transmitter was not very good for actual use ..." are against the WP:NPOV#Fairness and sympathetic tone.
3. 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).
4. 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:

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.

Category:Graphical timelines

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 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Hughes

In this article, Hughes is described as transmitting by induction but in the article on Hughes it is stated that this is not the case. Considering the distance over which he transmitted, I think that the method was substantially EM waves (although there is no absolute distinction)and that the section should be amended accordingly.Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:01, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Edison patent

Having looked at the Edison patent, it seems to me to be something of a bluff. It gives no clear description of how the invention works and seems to use a lot of technical words more or less randomly with no indication that he understands what they mean.Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I find the Edison patent disclosure is a model of clarity compared to ...ahem...certain other 19th century innovators in the radio arts. I can understand the stuff around lines 85 through 90 of the specification page 1. I can see why it can't work, too, but the Patent Office doesn't require an invention to actually work to get a patent. It's interesting - we've got the 100 foot towers connected to electrode terminals, ground connections, induction coils, high voltages...just like Wardenclyffe? Could someone please explain to me the difference (in modern electrical engineering terms) between what Edison claims in this patent and what Tesla was trying to build a decade later? Why didn't Edison sue Tesla? (or was it just that Tesla was broke and so litigation-resistant?).

Oh, now I see...Tesla is using conduction through ionized air between the raised terminals, and Edison is just using the air as a giant capacitive voltage divider.

This looks to be different from the "railway telegraph" system discussed in the article. In the 19th century "induction" was used for both electric field and magnetic field effects, so I don't know how the railway telegraph worked. --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:38, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Explanation for my recent edits

All radio systems use electromagnetic waves. These are transverse only and are described by Maxwell's equations. Any invention which purports to be radio but does no use EM waves is simply not radio. Such devices do not work and never have done.

Whether inventors of devices which were intended to work by some other means than EM waves but did, in fact, work by EM waves can be said to have invented radio is debatable.Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Purpose of this Page

I assume that the purpose of this article is to inform the reader on who was the inventor of radio. There are clearly many contenders for this title and I do not believe that it is the purpose of an encyclopedia article to actually make this decision for the reader. What it should do, however, is to give an unbiased description of each contender's claim to be the 'inventor of radio'. In doing this there are many objective issues that should be considered. In addition to items that are already present, such as timelines, I suggest we should consider:

1 What the person actually did.

Well documented and witnessed actions should take precedence over claimed actions or unconfirmed private work.

2 What their intentions were

Someone who had no intention of discovering radio transmission, but accidently did so, has a lesser claim than someone who was trying to invent radio.

Unrealized intentions for the future should carry little weight.

3 What their understanding of the subject was.

Someone who understood what they are doing and why they were doing it (in the light of the knowledge of the day) has a better claim than someone who just experimented.

4 What the person wrote

Publications in peer reviewed journals should carry greater weight than, say, newspaper articles. Patents should be considered critically both in the light of knowledge of the time and present day knowledge.

5 What the person achieved in commercial and publicity terms

I intend to try to improve the Marconi vs Tesla section to consider other contenders in the same way.

6 Whether their invention, as described, could actualy have achieved the transmission and reception of EM waves.

Inventions that might have worked, but by other means, are not radioMartin Hogbin (talk) 18:00, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

7 Whether later work followed their lead.Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:29, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Continued Research and Patents

Swampfire, you have deleted my text which comes from exactly the same page as the following text comes from: 'According to the IEEE, "the apparatus that he employed contained all the elements of spark and continuous wave that were incorporated into radio"[6]'. If you click the link it does not take you straight to the right page, you have to navigate to it. The link was inserted by the original contributor of the above text. I you do navigate to the correct page you will see the above text plus my added text shortly below. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:49, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Cases for Possible Inventors of Radio

I have added this section in an attempt to give a summary of all those who have a case for the above title. Some of this is taken from the similar article 'History of Radio' but I have restricted the entrants to those who have a claim to be the first to have invented radio in some sense of the words.

It would be good to see some discussion here rather than just edit waring.Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:20, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Now the controversial bit

I have reached the stage where Hertz has clearly demonstrated the transmission and reception of radio waves over a sort distance in a laboratory. The first question I would ask is, 'what else is there to do?' and then, 'who did it and when?'.

Bose, Popov, Testla, Marconi, Lodge all have claims, but what are they? The following have all been done: the original concept, the first actual transmission and reception, the first intentional transmission and reception, the first US patent granted for wireless telegraphy.

One claim that I would not personally consider significant is the first to recognize the potential or radio. I would consider Hertz as unusual in not recognizing the obvious potential of wireless communication.Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:09, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Can anyone fill in the gaps?

By 1888 Hertz had clearly demonstrated the transmission and reception of radio waves.

In 1893, at St. Louis, Missouri, Tesla gave a public demonstration of "wireless" radio communication. Does anyone know what the distance was and whether a message of any kind was sent and, if so, what it was?

On 19 August 1994 Lodge sent a wireless message by Morse code. Was this the first actual message sent by radio?

In 1894 Bose gave a public demonstration in which he ignited gunpowder. In 1895 (reported 1896) he sent a signal nearly a mile. Was that the longest distance so far?

In 1895 Popov sent a signal 600 yds.

Some time between 1896 and 1897 Tesla detected CW transmissions at 50kHz up to 30 miles. Does anyone know: The exact date that he achieved this range? How he detected CW transmissions? What kind of antennae he used for 50kHz? Who witnessed this?

By May 1897, Marconi had sent signals over land and sea over 6km

In 1898 Popov could send signals 7-9 km

In 1899 Popov could send signals 30 miles

In 1904 Marconi set up a commercial radio service. Was this the first? 86.132.189.39 (talk) 20:41, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Inventors Table

• Is there any consensus as to wither this section is better as a table or just text? Personally, I think a table was much clearer.Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:10, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
• Table. Present version presents the information in a particularly readable form. Hertz1888 (talk) 20:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
• I have put the tables back to plain table format with visible box lines and no fancy formatting. I deleted the <div> cross-headings, as they merely duplicated the info in the ===section headings===. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
• Put a {{ugly}} tag on it ... the table looks hedious just black. J. D. Redding 22:45, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

More Frequently Cited distinction.

In my opinion this distinction attempts to pre-judge the issue of who invented radio. Frequency of citation cannot easily be determined and varies from country to country and source to source. The distinction should be dropped.Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Unless (though it seems unlikely) a reliable source can be found for Tesla and Marconi being the most frequently cited. That would remove the distinction from the realm of editorial "OR". Hertz1888 (talk) 21:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

But cited where? USA, UK, Russia? We should not try to pre-judge the issueMartin Hogbin (talk) 21:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Tesla's claims

What exactly did Tesla transmit in 1891 and over what distance. Was the claim verified?Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Read the reference! J. D. Redding 21:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Which reference> I do not have the book. Why not just answer the questions, then they can be added to the article.Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:16, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

You may also be interested in :

Leland I. Anderson (ed.), "John Stone Stone, Nikola Tesla's Priority in Radio and Continuous-Wave Radiofrequency Apparatus". The Antique Wireless Review, Vol. 1. 1986. 24 pages, illustrated. (ed., available at Twenty First Century Books)

J. D. Redding 21:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

On what basis did Tesla hold the 'rights to radio'? The first radio patent was granted to Ward.Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Tesla's claims are all stated on a vague manner unlike all the other inventors. They need to be worded along the lines of confirmed transmission over x km in year yyyy or they should be deleted.Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Stuck a {{cleanup}} on this article ... will come back to clean up the edit war later ... 22:42, 4 August 2008 (UTC) {{ugly}}

It seems as though Martin Hogbin has a personal vendetta against Tesla, And is trying to use the page as a soapbox. I agree it needs to be cleaned up. Way to many uncited references.Swampfire (talk) 22:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I have nothing against Tesla - I am trying to ensure that the page presents an balanced and consistent picture of all candidates for the title of 'Inventor of Radio'. I have written summaries of all other candidates cases giving their principal claims with dates and whether the claim is confirmed. I am now trying to do the same with Tesla but I am finding it very hard to separate fact from myth and actions from intentions.Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

tempted to put a {{npov-section}} on it. J. D. Redding 23:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Did it. J. D. Redding 23:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Also there is stuff on the page in "other inventors" about wireless telegraphy, then the con about it. That one just doesn't belong at all there is as this is about invention of radio(wireless transmissions) not wireless telegraphy(phones)Swampfire (talk) 23:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I would keep in all wireless tech. Just me though. But radio proper has been between Tesla and Marconi. J. D. Redding 00:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

It has no place on Invention of Radio. If it were and aticle about wireless communication, it would belong. But this article is specifically about Radio. So it does not belong in a category about inventors of radio. Swampfire (talk) 01:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

It has place in invention of Radio. Wireless communication lead ultimately to radio as we know it. This article is specifically about Radio. J. D. Redding 01:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree, Wikipedia (and the rest of the world) defines radio thus: 'Radio is the transmission of signals, by modulation of electromagnetic waves with frequencies below those of visible light'.Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC) Perhaps we should have a page on on the evolution of radio frequency technology and techniques.Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

You could make a case for it being linked in the article. Stating that it lead to radio but youwould have to cite references while doing it. But not in the section of "other inventors" of radio.Swampfire (talk) 04:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

In other words stating that another inventor of radio was a person because he helped develop the phone system. Is like saying a person that helped develop the first combustable engine is an inventor of trains or planes, just because he helped develop the combustable engine.Swampfire (talk) 15:09, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

The claim that Tesla transmitted in 1891

I have read the reference cited for this claim and it does not support the claim that Tesla transmitted radio waves in 1891. The lecture is principally about the lighting of arc lamps and discharge tubes. He claims to have lit gas discharge tubes remotely but no mention whatever is made of EM waves, the only method of radio communication.

The claim should be reworded to say that Tesla claimed to have caused gas discharge tube to light remotely with a high frequency (20kHz) electric field. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

20kHz. longwave radio band. Nuff said. J. D. Redding 18:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

VLF is not longwave it is only used for specialist communications at very low data rates. What Tesla did was simply to capacitively couple his discharge tubes to a 20 kHz supply. No EM waves were involved and none were even claimed to be involved. It cannot, by any stretch of the imagination be called a radio transmission. But why argue, why not simply state exactly what Tesla did, that is perfectly fair to all. Why not just put in the 'for' section, 'Tesla claimed to have lit gas discharge tubes remotely with a 20 kHz supply'?Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

1. Please try not to lecture me on how VLF and longwave differ ... I did put in the reference of "Definition of frequency bands (VLF, ELF... etc.)" in the respective articles ... and was against the attempt to lump those articles together awhile back.
2. EM waves were involved in his experiments (eg. Electromagnetic wave propagation with a resonator for a particular standing wave pattern). Longitudinal EM waves were also involved in his experiments (eg., rapidly alternating electrostatic field from a established electrostatic field of force). You should read The Inventions, Researches and Writings of Nikola Tesla and The True Wireless
3. Try not to bias the article. Simply state exactly what Tesla did, that is perfectly fair to all. Radio transmission.
4. Tesla demonstrated wireless transmission techniques with a wireless supply and detected them remotely.

J. D. Redding 15:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

1. My point was is that 20kHz is not normally considered a radio frequency and has never been used for radio except for very special purposes.
2. EM waves are transverse, these are the waves used in ALL radio transmissions from submarine communications to microwave links. Your link above is misleading - the text is 'Longitudinal EM waves' but the article is just 'Longitudinal waves'.Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
3. I am not doing so - he lit gas discharge tubes remotely; this is not a radio transmission so it is not correct to say that he first transmitted on 1891.Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
4. Nonsense

Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense? Smarter people than I have stated this! A bit of reading to start is in the References and citation General Information sections. Maybe a trip to a library for offline sources may be good too. Thanks. J. D. Redding 19:48, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Well it is true that he did things without wires, so perhaps you could call that 'wireless' and in a very general sense of the word he transmitted but the article about the invention of radio and what Tesla did has nothing to do with that. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

The article is about the invention of radio and what Tesla did has alot to do with that. As stated by the IEEE, his system contained it all except the vacuum tube ... sincerely, J. D. Redding 20:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

But it was not a radio transmission. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it was wireless sending, propagating and receiving signals by the modulation of electromagnetic waves with frequencies below those of visible light. J. D. Redding 22:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

No, he did not use electromagnetic waves, he used capacitive coupling and transmission through his own body. No signals were sent and there was no modulation. Tesla did not even claim to be using EM waves or sending signals.Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I tire of the yes / no thing here ... get a reference that says he did not use EM waves or send signals.

The references inline and in the general information state that he was using EM waves and sending signals.

J. D. Redding 19:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The onus is on whoever makes a claim to cite a reference showing the claim to be true. You cannot expect references showing that every arbitrary claim is false. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Cite a reference showing the claim to be true? They are there! Geez ... read up on them! ... You claim them to be false, the onus is on you to cite material to support your position. J. D. Redding 00:19, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I have read the references and they do not support your claim. I think it is time we got some form of mediation or consensus on this subject.Martin Hogbin (talk) 07:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Which reference did you read? J. D. Redding 12:53, 14 August 2008 (UTC) (PS., Consensus doesn't not change facts. If a lot of ppl say the world is flat, it doesn't mean the world is flat!)

I have read all the on-line references. Ref 45 makes it clear that Tesla did NOT believe that he was using Hertzian (Radio) waves. Can you quote an exact extract from any of your references that says that Tesla transmitted a radio signal?Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:33, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Do you understand antennas? Do you know what a resonator is and a radiator is?

45? That one supports the claim! His device can be driven as a radiator for "Hertzian" waves or as a resonator for setting up standing surface waves. (BTW, this was proven mathematically by Zenneck ... and we understand it nowadays because of research into cavity resonators ... do you know about zenneck waves?)

He talked to Hertz himself! Did you read "The True Wireless"? Quoting ... "In the latter part of 1891 I was already so far advanced in the development of this new principle that I had at my disposal means vastly superior to those of the German physicist. [...] I considered this so important that in 1892 I went to Bonn, Germany, to confer with Dr. Hertz in regard to my observations. He seemed disappointed to such a degree that I regretted my trip and parted from him sorrowfully." (... this was because hertz didn't understand ground wave propagation ... had no idea nor imagination on the subject (eg., "useless", ha!) ... hertz was caught in the trap of 'homogeneous media' ... detached from reality, which is composed of multiple layers of media ...)

50 "Nikola Tesla, 1856 - 1943". IEEE History Center, IEEE, 2003. (cf., In a lecture-demonstration given in St. Louis in [1893] - two years before Marconi's first experiments - Tesla also predicted wireless communication; the apparatus that he employed contained all the elements of spark and continuous wave that were incorporated into radio transmitters before the advent of the vacuum tube. ... (do you know what a demonstration is?!?!)

55 U.S. Supreme Court, "Marconi Wireless Telegraph co. of America v. United States". 320 U.S. 1. Nos. 369, 373. Argued April 9-12, 1943. Decided June 21, 1943. (cf. The Tesla patent No. 645,576, applied for September 2, 1897, [...] disclosed a four-circuit system, having two circuits each at transmitter and receiver, and recommended that all four circuits be tuned to the same frequency. [... the apparatus could be] used for wireless communication, which is dependent upon the transmission of electrical energy.

This is starting to frustrate me to no end ... Ignorance I can tolerate, stupidity i cannot. J. D. Redding 12:52, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

All you state is irrelevant. Tesla did not transmit EM waves, of any kind, in 1891, he does not even claim to have done so.Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

You are ignoring the facts.

You don't accepted what the IEEE has stated?

What reliable source is there that says he didn't?

J. D. Redding 18:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I have nothing against the IEEE but they did not state that transmitted radio in 1891. My reliable sources are the ones that you quote, which make it quite clear what Tesla did. What they state he did is not a radio transmission.Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:48, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

First confirmed greater-than-lab-scale (say >50 ft) radio transmission by Tesla.

In order to establish priority over Bose for the first confirmed radio transmission over a significant distance, we need to produce evidence that Tesla did this first. Note that we need to show that the transmission used radio waves and was verified by an independent observer, as was the case with Bose.Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

No. We need a reliable reference to cite it. Sincerely, J. D. Redding 18:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

You removed my statement that Bose was the first to transmit over a significant distance. Bose is well documented to have transmitted over 75 feet. To challenge the fact that he was the first you must cite a reliable reference that shows that Tesla (or somebody else) did this earlier.Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

'For' and 'against'

I have moved Marconi's 1895 transmissions into the 'for' section, where they logically belong. Whether or not they were bettered by someone else they are an achievement of Marconi, not a failure. The date is there for all to see. The logical way to show that this was not a great achievement is to put the earlier date of someone else in their for section.Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:53, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Tesla's 'For'

I would like to rewrite Tesla's 'For' section of the table to summarize his achievements with dates and whether confirmed or not but I would like to do this after some discussion of the subject. Here is what I have taken from the article and how I propose to summarize it:

Section beginning - Around July 1891, he established his New York laboratory...

Summary - In 1891 Tesla lit gas discharge tubes using without the use of wires.

Section beginning - Later, a variety of Tesla's radio frequency systems were demonstrated...

Summary - Referring to a demonstration of his lighting equipment in 1893 the IEE said "the apparatus that he employed contained all the elements of spark and continuous wave that were incorporated into radio transmitters before the advent of the vacuum tube"

Section beginning - After 1892, Tesla received wireless signals ...

Summary - In 1895 Tesla was ready to transmit a signal 50 miles but fire destroyed his lab

Section Beginning - his exhibition of a radio-guided...

Summary - In 1898 Tesla demonstrated a radio controlled boat in Madison Square Garden

Section about Tesla's patents

Summary - 1990 Tesla was granted two parents for 'Apparatus for Transmission of Electrical Energy' Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

More general contribution summaries

The summaries of prospective 'inventors of radio' that I have added so far concentrate on specific achievements of the various contenders, particularly instances of radio transmission and reception. I think that we all agree that there are other, more general, ways in which a person may contribute to the 'invention' of radio. For example Bose and Tesla contributed the innovation of some of the components used in radio and Marconi, Popov, and Tesla were concerned with the commercial application of radio. Others contributed to the popularization and public awareness of radio.

I would like to add short (one sentence) summaries of more general achievements to the table. Any suggestions? 86.133.176.101 (talk) 11:23, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Fessenden, of course, "Radio's First Voice". It is scandalous that he and his achievements have not been included in the article heretofore. He deserves considerably more than one sentence. Hertz1888 (talk) 15:27, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I have to admit that I had not heard of him before but I agree that he should get more of a mention. I was actually thinking of the contributions of the current contenders. The problem is that it is not really clear to me what the article is all about. After Maxwell and Hertz no one can really be said to have invented the radio. To some it seems that the article is about Marconi (who is often said to have invented the radio) vs Tesla. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:55, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Wow! You never heard of Fessenden? geez ...

Not clear to you what the article is all about? It's about the invention of radio.

Neither Maxwell nor Hertz conceived of the invention. They had no idea what to do with their theories and experiments!

The article is primarily about Marconi (who is often said to have invented the radio) vs Tesla (who is also often said to have invented the radio). Other contenders are mentioned and should be.

J. D. Redding 20:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Do we have any good citations for Fessenden making the first audio transmission?Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:55, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

You should find a wide selection to choose from in the references and external links sections of his dedicated WP article, which also lists his patents. In addition, the site[3], in particular, has further links. Cheers, Hertz1888 (talk) 19:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I suppose we have to be extra careful to distinguish between "invention of radio" and "invention of the radio". The former refers to the technology, the latter, at least in U.S. usage, to the receiving instrument (or "set"). Hertz1888 (talk) 20:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments by the IEEE on apparatus used by Tesla

The quotation below [my capitals] taken directly from the IEEE source quoted clearly refers to 1893. The item in the summary should be changed to show this.

"In 1893 the Chicago World Columbian Exposition was lighted by means of Tesla's system and work was begun on the installation of power machinery at Niagara Falls. In a lecture-demonstration given in St. Louis IN THE SAME YEAR -two years before Marconi's first experiments-Tesla also predicted wireless communication; the apparatus that he employed contained all the elements of spark and continuous wave that were incorporated into radio transmitters before the advent of the vacuum tube". Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:24, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Excessive Detail in Summary

I was hoping to have a summary table showing very short statements of the achievements of each inventor together with date and confirmed/unconfirmed status. In the case of Tesla, the table has been expanded to add a lot of unnecessary detail, much of which is duplication. I suggest that the place for this kind of detail is in the body of the text above. To add detail to one 'inventor' only gives a biased view and to do it to all defeats the object of having a summary table.

How about some discussion?Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:11, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

These are necessary details. They are short statements.

The detail is in the body of the text above, also ... but mentioned briefly because this outlines the pros and cons!

Add detail to all 'inventors' to give a balanced view. Keep them short statements!

The object of having a summary table is to outline who did what. This is accomplished with the table I would suppose.

J. D. Redding 19:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I see that most of the added material has now been put as footnotes, this is much better in my opinion, although it would be nice to have a way to distinguish between footnotes (extra detail in the article to explain and support the main text) and citations (of external documents).Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:24, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

RFCsci

Moved from main article space ... J. D. Redding 18:33, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

What's the issue that you seek comments on? Dicklyon (talk) 15:12, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

That was going to be my question. Copy edits and peer review reqests aren't RfC material. Should be a specific problem / disagreement / discussion.Yobmod (talk) 12:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I moved it from the main articlespace ... it was placed there by Martin Hogbin. Please ask him. J. D. Redding 16:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I rmvd the RfC, as there is no rationale for it.Yobmod (talk) 09:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

A radio communication system requires two tuned circuits each at the transmitter and receiver, all four tuned to the same frequency.

This statement is pure nonsense. Radio receivers usually have more that two tuned circuits but it is quite possible to build one with just one tuned circuit or even none. Of course there may have been some technical advantages in some cases to having two tuned circuits in certain early radio designs but it is not, and never has been, a requirement of a radio communication system.Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:02, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

At it's basic, a radio communication system has two tuned circuits, one @ the transmitter ... one @ the receiver. It's reliably referenced and is a requirement of a radio communication system. J. D. Redding 15:21, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, that is not what is stated above (that is why I made the header the exact quote from the article). The article states that two tuned circuits are required in the transmitter and two in the receiver, and for the avoidance of doubt, states that all FOUR must be tuned to the same frequency.

Secondly this is still just plain wrong. There is no requirement to have any particular number of tuned circuits in either a receiver or a transmitter. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:35, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

You're both wrong. It's not plain wrong, but it totally misses the point that was made in the cited source. See pages 70 and 71 Tesla, Master of Lightning. I agree that seems like an arbitrary technical limitation, a narrow conception of radio. But according to the source, this is the criterion arrived at by experts that the legal wrangling focuses on. That's what needs be said, not a statement of supposed technical fact, but a summary of what the legal battle was over. Dicklyon (talk) 15:10, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, thanks for your interest. I have no problem with the statement being used in its proper context, the legal battle in the US between Tesla and Marconi, where it still is quoted, but as a general statement about radio it is wrong. To help put things into context have a look at the link radio communication system from the section of text that I deleted from the header, in particular look at the edit history of that page.Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:14, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I have just deleted the statement again because (apart from in the context of the Marconi US patent dispute) it is just plain wrong, and obviously so. Yo can see designs for receivers with just one tuned circuit in many places. Many receivers have more.Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Split off long ago

We've got Radio. We've got Invention of radio. We've got Timeline of radio. And we've got History of radio. Could we merge "invention" and 'timeline" into "history", and truncate the history part of the "radio" article? --Wtshymanski (talk) 23:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

This article was 'split off' from the Radio and History of radio (this was done because the other articles would be TOO long if this information was covered there ...). Long time ago. 'Timeline' articles are, and should be, separate from most "history of" article. Different format, different coverage ('timelines' are listed by dates as a list, 'history of' cover the information in more paragraph forms). Both are acceptable, both are needed. J. D. Redding 13:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

And now we've got also Radio communication system by a guy who likes to tell his version of the history and needed a place to do that. Dicklyon (talk) 00:02, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey Dick, who are you referring to? ... just wondering. J. D. Redding 13:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm referring to you. So far, I haven't seen much useful talk out of you; will this help provoke some? Dicklyon (talk) 16:09, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I haven't seen much useful talk out of you either. If there are useful comments in improving the article [as this is what these talk pages are for], I'll comment. J. D. Redding 16:33, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Reddi, I look forward to your replies to some of the subjects that I have been trying to discuss on this page.Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:10, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

You both have a point. I assumed that this page was for people who wanted to make something of an issue of the question 'Who invented radio' rather than just give a general history of the subject. My personal opinion is that, after Maxwell and Hertz published their results, no one can really be said to have invented radio - so the page becomes a place to put all the more controversial facts as neutrally as possible so that readers who want an answer to the question can make up their own minds. I suspect this this kind of controversy will not be welcome on the History of radio page.Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

This page was not for people who wanted to make something of an issue of the question. It was to cover the existing topic. It is well known if you know history. J. D. Redding 13:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I put that a bit too strongly, I meant that the page is for people who are interested in finding out specifically who invented radio rather that reading up on its general history.Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:10, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I've had a bit of a change of heart on Radio communication system which I think could be turned into a useful article if it threw out all the redundant stuff covered in radio and so on, and instead talked about the systems aspect more...how does a city decide what mobile radio system to pick? What sorts of issues come up in distribution of TV signals across a continent? When do you build towers instead of burying cables or using a satellite hop? Etc. - Could be very interesting and useful to someone who's wondering why his local city council is taking so long to decide on a system, for example. Of course the articles I think Wikipedia needs most are the ones I don't feel competent enough to write (at least not without a whole lot of research).

I think the Tesla/Marconi controversy can be appropriately covered in the history of radio article and does not need this article at all. The Supreme Court decision was irrelevant to the further success of the Marconi Company, since the tuned-circuit patent would have expired by then anyway. (Look at the dates...why would the Americans want to pay even nominal tribute to an enemy national?) The whole history of commercialization of radio is rife with manipulations by governments, military paranoia, nationalism, and general human folly (and so is a microcosm of all human history). The Tesla stuff is mostly beside the point anyway, in the practical sense...if you went to a communications company office and sent a radiogram to another place, the name on the door and the name on the equipment was "Marconi" - Tesla never commercialized anything in his life after he sold his 2-phase patents, and Tesla seems to have been hostile to otherwise widely-accepted principles of EM propagation. "Invention of radio" is not a well-defined concept, and this article should acknowledge that...there's a long road between a spark jumping at the far end of a lab bench and selling ad spots on Amos and Andy. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:06, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Wtshymanski, what are you saying "widely-accepted" principles of EM propagation? Tesla went to Europe and met with Hertz himself not long after Hertz published his paper! His paper was not "widely accepted" then, time and place is important. Geez ... anyways, Tesla used Maxwell's original formulas ... not the Hertz-Heaviside-Gibbs equations we use today. J. D. Redding 14:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

It is widely accepted that the HHG formulation of Maxwell's equations (combined with charge conservation and the Lorentz force law, which are not relevant to radio) tell you everything that there is to know about electromagnetism. There is only one kind of EM wave, the transverse wave that Maxwell's equations predict and Hertz produced. Any mysterious longitudinal waves that Tesla may have believed that he was using are pure figments of his imagination. This is not to criticise him, just to point out that he did not understand electromagnetism fully.Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

longitudinal waves that Tesla was using are real. Waves in plasma. Real experiments show this. If you wander around in theory and lose touch with reality as HHG did you would think the way you do. As Tesla stated in Modern Mechanics and Inventions of 1934, "Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality". J. D. Redding

Longitudinal EM waves are pure fantasy and have no place in Wikipedia. Tesla's statement has proven to be obviously wrong as we now live in a world dominated by many forms of radio, all of which work by using the transverse waves predicted by (any formulation of) Maxwell's equation. Longitudinal EM waves are nowhere to be seen - because they do not exist. I have given you one web reference to show this and two references to EM text books, one a standard undergraduate introduction and the other a more advanced book. Longitudinal EM waves were a figment of Tesla's imagination.

You reference to Waves in Plasma is a red herring. Plasma waves of many kinds exist but, unsurprisingly, only in plasmas. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:24, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The "Invention of radio" is a well-known concept in history. J. D. Redding 14:10, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you could explain what you understand by the concept, so we can all be trying to do the same thing.Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:03, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

The concept? Several people were involved in the invention of radio and there were many key inventions in what became the modern systems of wireless. J. D. Redding 23:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

In that case, the article is redundant and should be deleted as this is no different from the ground already covered in Radio and History of radio. The article would serve a useful purpose if it restricted itself to addressing the question of, 'Who invented radio?' Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:33, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

De Forest and others

This article is specifically about the invention of radio. It should therefore concentrate on those who have some sort of a claim to be the inventor of radio (radio seems to have a lot of fathers). De Forest was, of course, an important contributor to the development of radio but there is no way that he could ever be described as the inventor of radio. All the others in the table have some claim to the title; he does not and should be removed, otherwise the article becomes a rehash of History of radio. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:16, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

He has been cited as the "father of radio". He was an important contributor to the development of radio. Some have claimed him the inventor of it, or in the least the modern version of it. J. D. Redding 23:01, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Two refs to begin with.

Dennis, Everette E..; Edward Pease (1994). Radio—The Forgotten Medium. Transaction Publishers. ISBN 1-56593-873-9. , p. 198: "the egotistical Lee De Forest who discovered, however unwittingly, the audion tube that allowed him to proclaim himself 'the father of radio'"

Shurkin, Joseph (1996). Engines of the Mind: The Evolution of the Computer from the Mainframes to Microprocessors. W. W. Norton and Company. ISBN 0-393-31471-5. , p. 132: "De Forest, who was not a modest man, called himself the 'Father of Radio,' an epithet whose accuracy is debatable."

Others are out there ... he should be included, if nothing else but for completeness. J. D. Redding 23:05, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I do not doubt the important of De Forest's invention but, by time that he invented the triode, radio was already on regular use. He cannot therefor be said to have played any part in its invention. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Utility of article

This article would be more useful if it was focussed on the patent dispute between the Marconi company and the US Government. Anyone can look at the Supreme Court decision ( see http://supreme.justia.com/us/320/1/case.html ) and see that it overturns Claim 16 of one of Marconi's patents. Also please read the dissenting opinions. The case is about the Marconi company not getting paid by the US government for use of some of the Marconi company's patents during WWI. Tesla barely gets mentioned - John Stone Stone's system gets more discussion, and even that is acknowledged not to be identical to Marconi's patent. The Marconi patent was valid for years, and by the time of the 1943 Supreme Court decision the patent would have expired anyway.

Some editors apparently believe the transistor invention is relevant to the history of radio. Why? Radio was big business and fully practical long before 1948. Certainly invention of the transistor has no relevance to the priority disputes of *two generations* before.

Wikipedia articles should be concise - this one rambles all the way from Hertz to the Supreme Court and gives a potted Tesla mini-biography en-route. All of this is redundant - no-one not involved in editing this mess will ever *read* the darn thing through and understand the issue. The Popov, Lodge,etc. claims are already described in History of radio and are redundant here. "Longitudinal waves" are not radio, whatever else they are. Conduction, induction, capacitive coupling are also not radio. The article should stick to its title subject. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

John Stone Stone's system is a derivative of Tesla work. Do you know who John Stone Stone is? J. S. Stone cites Tesla later as the inventor of radio ... his monograph was written after the turn of the century and states this ...

Marconi patent was based off prior art.

Transistor invention is relevant to the history of radio. Why? The modern version of radio has it (so for completeness it should be included ... inventor of "radio" as we know it today) ... if it a general question of old tech only then the article should come down to a question of who is the father of wireless and there is a citation for that ... it is also related to the vacuum tube thing that is removed ... they replaced vacuum tubes ... the tubes were a thing of DeForest ...

The rest of your comments have been addressed elesewhere ... so not repeating myself here ...

J. D. Redding 18:14, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh yea talking about reading and misreading ... think you need to see: Wunsch, A.D., "Misreading the Supreme Court,” Antenna, Volume 11 No. 1, November 1998, Society for the History of Technology. Sincerely, J. D. Redding 18:19, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

The purpose of this article.

Perhaps it might be a good idea to discuss what people think is the purpose of this article. If we cannot agree on a purpose then the article should be deleted, as we already have at least two articles on radio and its history.

I believe that it should address the question, 'Who invented radio?' The article should list possible contenders for the title and give concise and balanced reasons as to why they are such. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

This article shouldn't exist. We have History of radio. "Who invented radio" only has a unique answer if you have a unique definition of "radio". Radio was developed, not invented. There's a whole chain of people between sparks on a lab bench and the invention of the Top 40 programming service. "History of radio" is a more appropriate place to discuss how radio came to be. The 1943 Supreme Court case decision that so excites some is interesting to read - the dispute revolves more around connecting an inductor and antenna *this way* instead of *that way*, and in no place ever says anything like "Tesla invented radio, so there!". The dissenting opinions should also be read. Tesla wasn't even a party to the suit (and Marconi himself was dead for years before it was decided). There's a reason Tesla is obscure and Marconi is celebrated - Marconi made it work. --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

1st ... This article should exist. It is a notable historical topic. More important than an article on the Red Book of Westmarch.

2nd, Radio was invented. It was also developed. Not mutually exclusive concepts.

3rd, Why did I know you were gonna mention the "not part of". You apparently never studied any logic. Tesla held the rights. Once Marconi's rights were removed it defaulted back to Tesla.

There's a reason Tesla is obscure and Marconi is celebrated. Tesla's funding was removed and he can be viewed as, as many Tesla fanatics ramble on about, being suppress. Marconi made it work with other people's prior art (but not just Tesla's).

Sincerely, J. D. Redding 19:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC) (PS., see intro of invention.)

1 The history of radio is indeed a notable notable topic, but there is already an article with that name. What do you intend this article to do that that one does not?

2 This article is called the INVENTION of radio, not the development or commercialization or popularization of radio. That is what it should be about. If you want to write articles on the other subjects then feel free to do so.

3 Neither Marconi, nor Tesla, nor nobody ever held the 'rights to radio'. Marconi had a patent on a particular aspect of radio technology and it was judged, some considerable time after the patent was granted, that it was invalid due to prior art. That is all.

Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I almost think you are intentionally misconstruing my statements ... watch out, troll territory is not far from there ...

The invention of radio is indeed a notable notable topic.

Tesla held the 'rights to radio'. Tesla had a patent on a fundamental and underlying aspect of all radio technology. That is all.

Sincerely, J. D. Redding 20:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC) (PS., read the intro to invention ... get a dictionary if you need help.)

I note that you have resorted to name calling and not actually answered any of my points. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I haven't called you anything ... just warning you that you seem to be nearly acting in a way that can expose yourself as that.

I did make statement in response to your statements. I do not see any questions. 23:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I did miss "What do you intend this article to do that that one does not?"

I don't plan on anything. I do not own this article.

This article topic is delineated in the intro and header of the page. Has been the for quite some time.

This article is focused on it's topic. A specific topic. The history article is different than this one as it's more general and less specific. This has been the custom in Wikipedia for some time now. that is why there are {{main}}, {{further}}, {{seealso}}, etc., ... 23:27, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I do not entirely disagree with that Wtshymanski; the history of the subject is well covered elsewhere. On the other hand, 'Who invented radio?' must be a commonly asked question which clearly cannot be answered with a single name. An article which gives balanced information on all contenders, so that people can make up their own minds, might be worthwhile. What is not worth having, in my opinion, is a Marconi vs Tesla article. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The history of the subject is not covered very well in other places. It is well covered here. This article does give balanced information on all contenders. If you think more information should be included, {{expand}} it! What is worth having is "Marconi vs Tesla" information, as it's the main contenders in the subject and historically covered this way. J. D. Redding 19:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Tesla is not widely claimed as the inventor of radio (have a look as some of the references that you give). There are several other contenders, depending on exactly what you mean. If you want and article specifically about the Marconi patent dispute then write one with that title. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Tesla is claimed as the inventor of radio to varying degrees. Sorry you don't like the facts. You seem to want an article on the Marconi patent disputes .. you should write it. That topic is related, but not the primary topic this article. This is the article over the invention of radio. J. D. Redding 20:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I would still be interested to know what you think this article should do that the other articles on radio and its history do not. That way we might both be working towards the same end. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:22, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I have told you. It is about the invention of radio (a specific topic; the Main article). The other are general topic of radio (not specifically about the history or the invention alone) and the history (history of radio is not specifically about the the invention alone nor is it a general article). You seem not to want to acknowledge that. Sincerely, J. D. Redding 14:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Independently confirmed transmission by Tesla before 1898

Where is the evidence of independent confirmation that Tesla transmitted radio waves before 1898? If this is not provided, his date of first transmission must be 1898. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:26, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Much of his lectures and demonstrations were public. Do you know about the 1893 demonstration? Any of the other tech demonstrations in that time? Do you know what a demonstration is?!?! Have you seen the image of him standing on the platform in from of the London society? Have read the lectures done in America and in Europe? Do you know anything realy about his radio work? Also, the references and citations that are provided in the article give information. 19:52, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Of course I know about the 1893 demonstration, I could hardly not, but I am asking about radio transmissions. In his demonstrations he lit gas discharge tubes by capacitive coupling or by conduction through his own body. Where is the evidence that he sent radio waves, or indeed anything, more than a few feet? Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:09, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

"Since the work of each man was independent, both Tesla and Marconi should be given credit." Schmitt, R. (2002). Electromagnetics explained: a handbook for wireless/RF, EMC, and high-speed electronics. Amsterdam: Newnes. Page 86 ... Schmitt 'cuts the difference' ... but Marconi was not independent of Tesla's work. Tesla was focused on AC power systems. But Tesla also was a Radio engineer [as much as you could say when you start up a field].

Some quotes in Tesla: Man Out of Time by Margaret Cheney ... Page 16 "In almost every step of progress in electrical power engineering, as well as in radio, we can trace the spark of thought back to Nikola Tesla" ... Page 96, "Simultaneously, in the receiver group, the Geissler tube lighted up from radio-frequency excitation picked up by the receiver antenna wire." ... Page 97 "This became the accepted practice of commercial radio until the invention by Maj. Edwin H. Armstrong of the regenerative or feedback circuit". ... Page 144, "After the lectures of 1893 in which he had described in detail the six basic requirements of radio transmission and reception" ...

There are other works, citations, and facts show this and that he transmitted long distances ... but you can have your own truth ... some people's truth don't always sync with the facts, though ... Sincerely, J. D. Redding 20:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be completely misunderstanding the question. Marconi, for example, has clear examples of radio transmissions that were observed by independent parties. He was witnessed to have transmitted over 6 km in March and May 1897. There are no equivalent verified transmissions by Tesla, certainly nothing more than a few feet by capacitive coupling. Wikipedia policy is that claims must be verifiable. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

There are equivalent transmissions by Tesla. Tesla own words are one. Do you think he is lying?

I'll get some more refs if I have time. But 3rd party reference citations that he did as now in the article are enough and are in accordance with WP policy.

You keep trying to say it was coupling. It was not. There are reliable references that state it was RF transmission. The few that I have seen that support your stance are not reliable.

Sincerely, J. D. Redding 23:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

And, oh, BTW ... if, as has been stated in various references, Marconi was using Tesla's patents and theory and designs ... all of Marconi's "demonstrations" are just confirmation of Tesla's work ... J. D. Redding 23:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC) (... just pondering for a moment ...)

Words are not transmissions. If Tesla transmitted then it must be verifiable. All I am trying to do is ensure that the contributors are credited with what they actually did, rather than what they might have done. This seems quite fair to me. If there are no references that verify that Tesla transmitted any significant distance before 1989 then the article must not claim that he did so.Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Read the references. The info is in them. J. D. Redding 14:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

If you are going to claim that Tesla transmitted before 1898 it is up to you to produce verification of this claim. It is no good telling people to find out for themselves.Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Futhermore, that kind of historical conclusions needs to be backed up by reliable historians, not original research based on interpretation of Tesla's own claims. If it's in one or more of the cited sources, please just point it out to us. Dicklyon (talk) 01:06, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Anderson, L.I., "John Stone Stone on Nikola Tesla's Priority in Radio and Continuous-Wave Radiofrequency Apparatus", The A.W.A. (Antique Wireless Association) Review, Vol. 1, 1986, pp. 18-41.

Anderson is the editor, it is the monograph of John Stone Stone.

Again, read the damn references. J. D. Redding 16:46, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

This is just waffle. On what date did he transmit. Using what equipment? Who witnessed the transmission? For many others these questions are easily answered. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:38, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

some links

• Tesla's method and the ommission/suppression of this
  • http://books.google.com/books?id=NBLEAA6QKYkC&pg=PA272&lr=&sig=ACfU3U0HZEOVKlu36dB13jtUHH8u6X77rQ
• France's and Germany's opinion on the priority of Tesla
  • http://books.google.com/books?id=h2DTNDFcC14C&pg=PA463&sig=ACfU3U1FcHeaYzD3Fqla2kjPrtF1HcYSBg#PPA391,M1
• Tesla method
  • http://books.google.com/books?id=ymAAAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA271

J. D. Redding 21:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Do any of these books show where Tesla was witnessed to have transmitted over any significant distance? Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

1st, can you read?

2nd, do any of these bullets state that?

3rd, you are focused on that ... these are more general link to be used to improve the article. that is why it's in a new section ... if it was to address that concern, I'd put it up in the appropriate section.

J. D. Redding 23:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Abstraction and arguements

It gets worse and worse...we also have an article Wireless. Could someone please tell me what the purpose of all these overlapping articles is?

I've quickly looked at the Tesla patents and find that the he repeatedly claims his devices work by conduction through the air, not by propagation of electromagnetic waves. Whatever Tesla was doing, it wasn't radio. The long Tesla section in this article was misleading...Tesla wasn't working on radio, but on power transfer (his patent description shows light bulbs and motors hung off his "receiver" coil!). Tesla apparently believed that any Hertzian emissions from Tesla's apparatus was only a loss mechanism and of no value for communications. In this Tesla was mistaken since his conduction principle has never produced usable results and the air is thick with Hertzian waves making money for their users.

Patent validity is a very shaky basis for assigning priority; would anyone be happy if we said Tesla invented radio from 1893 to 1898, then Lodge and Stone invented it, then from 1902 through 1943 Marconi invented it, then from 1943 to pick a date Tesla invented it again? Seems unsatisfactory, and wrong.

Someone secure in his facts need not resort to Ad hominem attacks.

Reddi, please define for us what radio is so we can figure out what you want. Right now this is like arguing about the habits and nature of the heffalump. Arguments are often a sign of climbing too high on the ladder of semantic abstraction - please point at what you mean when you say "Tesla invented THIS".

The article would be more interesting if it talked about why some people believe Tesla invented radio, and if the Supreme Court was correct in invalidating one of Marconi's patents.

The article would be more accurate as it reads now if it was titled "Tesla invented radio" since this would accurately reflect its current point of view. --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

IYNSHO, it's worse and worse ... really it's better and better ... this has been the situation for some time and has been edited by several people over time ....

Could I tell you what the purpose of all these articles are? Maybe ... but others may be better at it ... they are not the exact same concepts, related but not the same, and and each concepts should be delineated in their own right ... the are of historical importance in the least ...

France, Germany, and America give priority of the invention of radio to Tesla. Tesla was working on radio, but also on power transfer ... among other things.

I'm not defining anything, others smarter than me have defined it. They also have credited Tesla as laying the foundation and providing the tech to make radio possible. Fritz Lowenstein analysis shows the beauty and advantage of substituting for the static method that of radio frequency currents, which the latter method we owe to Mr. Nikola Tesla. In this Tesla wasn't mistaken since all of his early radio principles has produced usable results and the air was thick in the early days of radio with electromagnetic waves making money for their users from his work.

Anyways, I did the Tesla patents, so you don't tell me what Tesla thought in his patents.

Patent validity is a basis for assigning priority; some would be happy if it was said Tesla invented radio. He was given priority of the invention from 1893 to 1898, then Lodge and Stone invented components that help further the art. Not real sure if they took the title away from Tesla. Then from 1902 through 1943 Marconi held the title of "inventor". Then from 1943, to pick the date, Tesla was recognized as the true inventor of radio. His title was reestablished. Seems unsatisfactory. But it would be correct.

So, who restorted to Ad hominem attacks? Why did they?

The articles are not suppose to be "interesting", "colorful", or "exciting" ... they are suppose to be NPOV. Some people know Tesla invented radio. If you want to {{expand}} the section on Supreme Court being correct or incorrect in invalidating Marconi's patents, do so (but include the concurrent opinions ... not just the dissenting opinions ...) ...

J. D. Redding 14:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

What is radio? All that discussion of your last few additions to this talk page doesn't help me. I am a bear of very little brain and I need you to point at something when you talk about "invention of radio" because the stuff I read in the Tesla patents isn't radio and you say it is radio, but what I say is radio is that box on my kitchen counter that makes musical and vocal noises...and Tesla has nothing to do with that. You do have something concrete in mind, of course, when you speak of "radio". What is it, that Tesla invented, that is radio? Why is it different from what we understand as "radio" today? Nobody sends news sports and weather over the air using mutltimillion volt Wardencylffe-style towers. So, Wardenclyffe wasn't radio. What is radio? Tell me that first so I can constructively contribute to this article, which desparately needs trimming. The articles are supposed to be useful, and this one rambles so. The articles are supposed to be about their subjects, and this one is nothing but craven Tesla-worship. --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:25, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

John Stone Stone may tell you what radio is. The rest of the remarks don't deserve comments. J. D. Redding 16:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)