Talk:Invention of radio/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

article reassessment

This article does not reflect the classification of "A" that is listed at the top of this talk page. Removing the rating class. It needs to be reassessed.

J. D. Redding 03:41, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I have no objection to reassessment but you should wait until this is done before removing the current assessment.Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

That would give the impression that this article is of the previous assessments. It is plainly not.

As a side note, please stop trying to alter my edits here in talk. thanks. [you removed the link of comparisons]

J. D. Redding 13:27, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Physics of wireless signaling

This article is called the invention of radio. There are indeed several ways in which a signal could be sent without wires, including capacitive and inductive coupling, and transmission by conduction through the ground or water, however, only one method has ever been used to any significant degree and only one method can be described as radio. That method is the use of electromagnetic waves as proposed by Maxwell and demonstrated by Hertz.

This section is therefore an irrelevance and should be deleted.Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:58, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

The section should stay. 'Radio' is more than maxwell's preliminary theory and more than hertz's simple primitive device.

Various people who have laid claim have used differing methods described in that section. For example, Stubblefield did earth transmission and he and his supporters claim the 'invention' of radio as his.

J. D. Redding 17:28, 27 September 2008 (UTC) (PS., Stubblefield was using induction to operate his devices, not radio transmission. J. D. Redding 18:39, 27 September 2008 (UTC))

Transmission through the earth is not radio. Radio is only EM waves as completely described by Maxwell.Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:41, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
So when the US military communicates with submarines and other installation through transmission of radio waves in the Earth and water, they aren't using radio? J. D. Redding 18:29, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
There is a difference between communication using the conduction of the earth or sea which is what you were referring to (which is not radio) and using a frequency of EM wave that penetrates these materials, which is the form of radio used to communicate with submarines.Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:49, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
The US military uses Extremely low frequency waves to do this. It's not conduction. It's radio. J. D. Redding 19:20, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
That is what I just said - ELF EM waves are used to communicate with submarines; this is radio. You refer to conduction through the earth in your new section; this is not radio. How can I make it any clearer?Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:37, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
I DID NOT add this section. I did copy edit it though!(see here)
I am glad that you have came around and acknowledge that ELF waves are radio waves.
Sincerely, J. D. Redding 01:05, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
It is clear from the record that I have always known this.Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Far too much on Tesla (old)

There is now far too much on Tesla, most of it complete hocus-pocus. Tesla deserves a place on the page but only on proportion to what he did for radio. His main contributions are already represented. What has been recently added consists mainly of his delusions.Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:44, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Why the anti-tesla POV editing by you? J. D. Redding 18:27, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I want to see Tesla have an appropriate entry in this article, commensurate with his contribution to the subject. If anyone cares to review your recent edits it will become obvious who is pushing their POV.Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:39, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Yea, not me. I also contributed greatly to the improvement to the Marconi article a while back. The comments of "hocus-pocus" and "delusions" show who has the POV, besides the removal of information. J. D. Redding 21:08, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I would hardly call it 'contributed greatly'. You seem to forget that there is a history of what you actually did for the Marconi article. Also, your recent additions to this article are there for all to see - nearly all about Tesla.Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:37, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
I been editing that article for quite some time. I put in most if not all of his patent registered with the United States patent office. There is an actual history of what I did for that article. Put in the facts. Neutralize the idol worship of Marconi. Corrected misinformation about what he did [like one about he alone listing for the transatlantic message.It was his assistant that he asked to listen for it!]
Also, I did keep the facts relevant about Tesla in that article, as well as the facts of other inventors and scientists that Marconi supporters seem to try to remove or obfuscate.
I am beginning to lose faith that you are edit in an unbiased fashion. To me it seems we are on the opposite end of editing style. I add fact and try to adhere to NPOV.
Sincerely, J. D. Redding 01:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
The history is there for all to see. The only way forwards is another RFC, specifically on Tesla.Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:22, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Timeline

I think the timeline is excellent but is there any way to expand the scale (and/or perhaps reduce the time span) so that we can get more in. Much happened in a short time.Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:54, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Here is the link for you to learn about the timeline stuff: http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:EasyTimeline

J. D. Redding 21:11, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the timeline is terrible. It's entirely redundant. It oversimplifies the development history to a comical extent - this is not the high-school hundred-yard dash where the winner is determined by who's nose breaks the tape first. It's arbitrary (what gets put in, what gets left out?). It's illegible - the fonts are tiny, resolution is poor. I've removed it again. We have an exhaustive and exhausting point-form table of who's contributed what; which, thoough also long and selective, at least gives some better idea of the development history. Finally, no-one has told me what "radio" is - if we're going to split hairs about who invented it, we'd better have an equally precise definition of what it IS. --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:30, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
I think the idea of having a timeline is a good one for this subject, which is all about who did what first. The current timeline needs improving to allow more detail. There is a good description of exactly what radio is on Wikipedia. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Tesla hocus-pocus

Is this section in reference to why they called Tesla "wizard of the west"? putting it in ... J. D. Redding 00:45, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Here is an example of claims for hocus-pocus by Tesla: 'Wireless transmissions could be done by transverse "Hertzian" waves with his devices acting as a radiator, but Tesla preferred the use of longitudinal waves' It is a well accepted fact that EM waves are transverse only. This sort of nonsense has no place in Wikipedia. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:43, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Learn about cavity resonators ... but not on the small scale, but on the large scale. The Earth surface and the ionosphere set up such a cavity. This is in much of the modern scholarly literature about Tesla. J. D. Redding 00:43, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
I know about cavity resonators but nothing uses longitudital EM waves, because they do not exist.Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:19, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Apparantly not ... because there are longitudinal modes in cavity resonators. 11:19, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, longitudinal modes but these are not longitudinal waves.Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:12, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
A longitudinal mode is a standing wave pattern of a transverse wave. — BillC talk 00:51, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Another example is 'After a while he began to favor another technique that he called the “disturbed charge of ground and air method'. This statement has no meaning known to current science. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:47, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

You may not understand it. But it is in accord with scientific knowledge. J. D. Redding 00:43, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

It is pure gibberish.Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:19, 29 September 2008 (UTC
Yea, gibberish to you. J. D. Redding 11:19, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Misleading Links

Some links that I have removed but have been reinstated seem to me to be misleading, for example:

'with the other forms being the Marconi antenna and Tesla antenna'

Tesla antenna redirects to Tesla coil which is not an antenna.

Marconi antenna redirects to Antenna. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martin Hogbin (talk • contribs) 08:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

The marconi antenna is explained in the antenna article. The tesla coil was used by Tesla as an antenna and is explained there. Not sure if this is ignorance or an unwillingness to learn.

Sign your comments. J. D. Redding 03:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Removing tesla info but leaving similar stuff of Marconi? WTF?

look at the edti

This is just POV editing ... temped to put a POV tag on this article if such activites continue .... J. D. Redding 03:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

These edits were based on established scientific credibility not a POV. As I have said and others have confirmed, longitudinal EM waves play no part on radio because they do not exist, also capacitive or inductive coupling are not used for radio transmissions. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Historical negation. Longitudinal fields did play a part. It was the scientific theory used in the early days of radio.
Marconi's activities of surface waves are left. But Tesla's work on the same thing are removed!
Idiocy.J. D. Redding 12:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Throwing out words like "idiocy" is not contributing to finding a solution. It would be more productive to discuss the text in terms of your sources. Dicklyon (talk) 16:20, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
What longitudinal fields are you referring to?Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:02, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Far too much on Tesla

  • I wouldn't say far too much, but I would think a 30% reduction would be appropriate. After all, why have more on Tesla than on Marconi? Apteva (talk) 22:14, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
It is not just the quantity that concerns me but the quality. Much of what has been written is contrary to accepted science, for example the purported use of longitudinal electromagnetic waves. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:29, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Much of what Tesla did and thought was contrary to accepted science; same with the other guys. The key here should be to fairly represent the history, including mention of what they tried and what ideas they explored. It seems that much of the recent edit warring has not been directed to finding fair and well-sourced characterizations of the history; can we refocus a bit with that in mind? Dicklyon (talk) 16:18, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
I am not talking about what was accepted science then, I am talking about what is accepted science now. There are no longitudinal EM waves and there never have been. This is very well accepted science. Therefore references to Tesla having used longitudial waves should be removed as he could not possibly have done so. The same applies to much else that it is claimed in the article that Tesla didMartin Hogbin (talk) 20:01, 12 October 2008 (UTC).
Am I'm saying you're wrong to approach it that way. If Tesla thought he was using longitudinal waves, that ought to be recorded as part of the history. And as to whether they exist, that depends on how you define them; in free space, they don't, but as guided waves at a boundary, like ground waves, longitudinal is not out of the question. Dicklyon (talk) 00:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
It is a very well established fact that there are no longitudinal EM waves, even at boundaries between different media. We cannot include in Wikipedia every experimenter's thoughts on the subject of radio even if they are completely wrong; this would be impractical. What should be included is anything that furthered the development of radio. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:10, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Tesla The Great Radio.jpg

The image Image:Tesla The Great Radio.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. --07:39, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Overlinking

Many terms (particularly things like 'electromagnetism') were excessively linked in this article and I have reduced this. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Marconi patent dispute

I do not see the Marconi patent dispute as playing a major part in deciding who invented radio. What do others think? Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:07, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Conduction through air

The heading under which conduction through air was placed was entitled 'Physics of radio' and the text stated,'Several different electrical, magnetic, or electromagnetic physical phenomena can be used to transmit signals over a distance without intervening wires.'

Note that it rightly says, 'can be used', not, 'have been tried'. In a section entitled 'Physics of radio' we must describe physics as it is understood today not as various early experimenters understood it.

Over the years all sorts of crackpot schemes for transmitting information over long distances without wires have been tried but I see little point listing them here. This article is about the development of radio. Some of the attempts that are closer to actual radio are described under the individual inventors, for example Ward, Loomis, and Tesla. That is all we need here. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, if we're going to amputate all context, sure, leave out all the conduction methods. Absent a good theory of electromagnetism, there was a lot of empirical experimentation going on. Surely the Tesla patents alone indicate that air conduction was considered. True, it doesn't have to work to get a patent. I've restored the earlier, more inclusive title of the section to allow discussion of wireless signalling without using radio. This is a terrible article and really should be merged into 'history of radio'. --Wtshymanski (talk) 00:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
I reverted your addition of "air" before noticing this discussion. But it doesn't make sense under "Physics of radio", does it? Dicklyon (talk) 03:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
It makes no sense at all there. Conduction through air plays no part whatsoever in the physics of radio. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

The article has been edited with a POV

Tesla influence and contribution have been minimized and altered here. It a sad article now. Needs a complete rewrite (there is the misquoting statements of the power transmission here wirelessly ... instead of focusing statements on the information transmission quotes ...). Harry Shoemaker (talk) 14:04, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

If anything, the article grotesquely over-represents Tesla's influence on radio. He didn't produce the equations (that was Maxwell). He didn't publish anything on RF propagation (that was Hertz). And he did nothing to get radio onto ships or to cross oceans (that was Marconi). --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:58, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Are you clueless? Tesla was fundamental in the development of radio. Read "History of Wireless" By Tapan K. Sarkar. Harry Shoemaker (talk) 14:06, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Just a snippet: Page 93, "In 1903 the US Patent Office made the following remarks: "Many of the claims are not patentable over Tesla patents ." Harry Shoemaker (talk) 14:11, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Please let's not get this article back to being a shrine to Tesla. I agree with Wtshymanski, if anything, his influence still over-represented here. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:18, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree, there is far too much meaningless waffle about Tesla. In the final Analysis, Tesla contributed virtually nothing to Radio technology Gutta Percha (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:37, 9 October 2009 (UTC).

David E. Hughes

I have edited the David E. Hughes entry to remove the claim that he used Morse Code. His notes say that he used a Transmitter keyed by clockwork (eg, it transmitted regular "ticks", but not morse). Have also added the important fact that he used a Carbon Detector of his own design. Gutta Percha (talk) 09:33, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Edison

It says ..."In 1885, T. A. Edison used a vibrator magnet for induction transmission". This statement is devoid of meaning. It should be deleted.Gutta Percha (talk) 08:48, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree. You know what to do then. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:16, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

First Decide What the Question Is

One of the reasons for disputes about radio is that different people are answering different questions. Below are some questions that could be asked with my proposed answers:

Who first proposed a clear and scientific concept of EM waves - Maxwell.

Who first produced (radio frequency) EM waves - An unknown person, long before Maxwell, no doubt unwittingly did so.

Who first intentionally produced radio waves based on an understanding of Maxwell's work - Hertz.

Who first, based on an understanding of Maxwell's and Hertz's work, first intentionally sent a signal over a significantly greater range than Hertz - Bose.

Who first developed radio effectively for commercial purposes - Marconi.

No doubt questions could be proposed to which other persons will be the answer (who got the first patent etc.) but I believe that the above questions have clear answers. Stating the question may be a way to resolve some of the controversy concerning this subject. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:00, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Hogbin, in case you were not paying attention (quite likely), the question is, "Who invented radio?." The answer is, Nicola Tesla:
  1. # ^ U.S. Supreme Court, "Marconi Wireless Telegraph co. of America v. United States". 320 U.S. 1. Nos. 369, 373. Argued 9–12 April 1943. Decided 21 June 1943.

If you are not American, perhaps you support the British view that Marconi deserves the credit. I'm American, so I must admit that, in this case especially, I'm biased in favor of the opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court. JRSlack (talk) 23:06, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Is there anyone else here?

Clearly there is a dispute between myself and Reddi on the presentation of the case for Tesla. Is anyone else interested in attempting to resolve this dispute?Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Clearly there is a dispute by you on the presentation of the case for Tesla. Most have not a problem ... as this is why this is an 'A' class article as rated on the top of the page! Just because someone doesn't like the fact doesn't mean they can change them. Sincerely, J. D. Redding 00:16, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Is it just the bit about the tuned resonators that I just reponded to, or more? I'm happy to take a look if there remains a conflict that needs attention. I agree with Hogbin that the bit he has been removing from the lead is nonsense in that context, but it ought to be included in a better form somewhere in the article. Dicklyon (talk) 15:27, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your interest. I would welcome you attention to a number of points in this article. My position is that it is not possible for an article of this nature to present any conclusion as to who the inventor of radio was (indeed that would be OR) but that what it should do is to present all the relevant facts clearly and even handedly to the reader. Earlier in this talk page I suggested criteria that might be considered. In particular I think that it is important to separate actions from intentions, unconfirmed claims from confirmed achievements, and speculation from established theory. I do not believe that supporters of Tesla are being even handed in these respects. Please have a general look at the article and see if you agree. In particular I have the following disputes:
In the summary table Tesla and Marconi have a special section. I see no reason for this and believe that contenders should be listed in alphabetical order in one table.
The table shows Tesla's first transmission as 1891. Perhaps you could review the discussion on this subject in the talk page.
There is generally more written about Tesla, much of it written as extensive footnotes and much of it repetitive.

Martin Hogbin

Perhaps you could also comment on Tesla's 'use' of longitudinal waves.

Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:36, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Hogbin: It's very sad that so many people continue to remain so ignorant of the many, wonderful contributions of America's 'adopted' genius, Nicola Tesla. His contributions to the field of Radio were notoriously ignored by the history books for over a century. If you're attempt to discredit him had been stated about sixty years ago, you'd have been pretty much just stating the mainstream (but, of course, ignorantly mistaken) opinion.
But your obvious refusal to face the facts supporting Tesla, in spite of the vast availability of information available nowadays that supports him, leads one to think you must have some kind of axe to grind. Specfically, which of the usurpers of Tesla credit are you genetically related to, Marconi, Edison, or? In explanation to Tesla on why he wouldn't pay him the $50,000 (yeah, that's in 1894 dollars!) he promised for improving the DC Dynamo, Edison replied, "Young man, you don't understand the American sense of humour." Maybe you're 'argument' is your way of telling the rest of us here, "You don't understand the Hogbin sense of giving credit."

From this website: http://www.kerryr.net/pioneers/tesla.htm: "Tesla, on hearing of Marconi's efforts, is said to have remarked to a friend: "Marconi is a good fellow. Let him continue. He is using 17 of my patents." If so, Tesla changed his mind eventually, suing Marconi for patent breach.

The court eventually found for Tesla after examining some circuit diagrams he had designed in 1893, and Marconi's patents were declared invalid in 1935. Unfortunately, the law suit dragged out until a few months after Tesla's death and he never saw a penny in compensation."

I don't have the references for the information quoted by the Tesla biography website (above), but the part about his winning the patent infringement lawsuit, posthumously, is easily verified, if you bother yourself to take a few minutes and look it up online. Also, I really don't get why you bother listing the chronology of Tesla accomplishments, then state that you are going to decide whether or not to "confirm" them.--Oh, really? JRSlack (talk) 22:21, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Longitudinal EM Waves

Radio (EM) waves are transverse. There are many exotic modes of transmission that may involve waveguide effects and reflections but this does not mean that these are longitudinal Radio waves. See this article:http://www.scientificexploration.org/jse/articles/pdf/16.3_bruhn.pdf for example.Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:49, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

They are called ground waves. They exist. J. D. Redding 16:22, 16 August 2008 (UTC) (that is not a reliable references, JIMO ... they exist as waves in plasma .. )

Please read ...

  • Wait, J. R., "Lateral Waves and the Pioneering Research of the Late Kenneth A Norton".
  • Wait, J. R., and D. A. Hill, "Excitation of the HF surface wave by vertical and horizontal apertures". Radio Science, 14, 1979, pp 767-780.
  • Wait, J. R., and D. A. Hill, "Excitation of the Zenneck surface by a vertical aperture", Radio Science, 13, 1978, pp. 967-977.
  • Wait, J. R., "A note on surface waves and ground waves", IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation, Nov 1965. Vol. 13, Issue 6, pg 996- 997 ISSN 0096-1973
  • Wait, J. R., "The ancient and modern history of EM ground-wave propagation". IEEE Antennas Propagat. Mag., vol. 40, pp. 7–24, Oct. 1998.
  • Wait, J. R., "Appendix C: On the theory of ground wave propagation over a slightly roughned curved earth", Electromagnetic Probing in Geophysics. Boulder, CO., Golem, 1971, pp. 37–381.
  • Wait, J. R., "Electromagnetic surface waves", Advances in Radio Research, 1, New York, Academic Press, 1964, pp. 157-219.

J. D. Redding 16:26, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

There are many kinds of wave that exist in plasmas, both longitudinal and transverse but we are taking about EM waves. What make you think that Zenneck waves are longitudinal? Why don't you read some of the references in Zenneck Waves?Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:21, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

If the online reference that I gave is not sufficient you might like to look in any text book on electromagnetism. One that I happen to have states 'The only longitudinal solution of the wave equation is an electrostatic one... Thus if there is a nonstatic solution it must be composed of transverse fields...'[1]. Another, referring to an EM waves, states, 'At every point the magnetic field is always perpendicular to the electric field and to the direction of propagation'.[2]

Whatever Tesla may have believed that he was doing he was not generating longitudinal EM waves.Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

"Whatever Tesla may have believed..." Hogbin, your ignorance is overshadowed only by your arrogance! What is your point of citing references of so-called 'contemporaries' of Tesla who purport to explain or define what his work meant? If you studied even an iota of his work, you'd realize (like scores of people have) that he actually had NO contemporaries because he was at least a century ahead of his time. JRSlack (talk) 22:31, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I Dispute Tesla's Claim about the invention of radio

This is an excerpt from Tesla's 1893 paper often cited as the "invention" of Radio. This is what Tesla wrote in his 1893 paper predating Marconi’s Patent. If we look at patents, Marconi's british patent predates tesla's by more than a year. Tesla has no idea about hertzian waves as it is apparent from his writings. If Tesla invented radio, show me his prototype! where is that radio? When did he transmit intelligible signals by radio? Tesla radio controlled boat was demonstrated in 1898. That is 3 years after Marconi transmitted morse code 1.5 km. Stop the lie or prove it!!!!!!

In connection with resonance effects and the problem of transmission of energy over a single conductor which was previously considered, I would say a few words on a subject which constantly fills my thoughts and which concerns the welfare of all. I mean the transmission of intelligible signals or perhaps even power to any distance without the use of wires. I am becoming daily more convinced of the practicability of the scheme; and though I know full well that the great majority of scientific men will not believe that such results can be practically and immediately realized, yet I think that all consider the developments in recent years by a number of workers to have been such as to encourage thought and experiment in this direction. My conviction has grown so strong, that I no loner look upon this plan of energy or intelligence transmission as a mere theoretical possibility, but as a serious problem in electrical engineering, which must be carried out some day. The idea of transmitting intelligence without wires is the natural outcome of the most recent results of electrical investigations. Some enthusiasts have expressed their belief that telephony to any distance by induction through the air is possible. I cannot stretch my imagination se far, but I do firmly believe that it is practicable to disturb by means of powerful machines the electrostatic condition of the earth and thus transmit intelligible signals and perhaps power. In fact, what is there against the carrying out of such a scheme? We now know that electric vibration may be transmitted through a single conductor. Why then not try to avail ourselves of the earth for this purpose? We need not be frightened by the idea of distance. To the weary wanderer counting the mile-posts the earth may appear very large but to that happiest of all men, the astronomer, who gazes at the heavens and by their standard judges the magnitude of our globe, it appears very small. And so I think it must seem to the electrician, for when he considers the speed with which an electric disturbance is propagated through the earth all his ideas of distance must completely vanish.

A point of great importance would be first to know what is the capacity of the earth? and what charge does it contain if electrified? Though we have no positive evidence of a charged body existing in space without other oppositely electrified bodies being near, there is a fair probability that the earth is such a body, for by whatever process it was separated from other bodies—and this is the accepted view of its origin—it must have retained a charge, as occurs in all processes of mechanical separation. If it be a charged body insulated in space its capacity should be extremely small, less than one-thousandth of a farad. But the upper strata of the air are conducting, and so, perhaps, is the medium in free space beyond the atmosphere, and these may contain an opposite charge. Then the capacity might be incomparably greater. In any case it is of the greatest importance to get an idea of what quantity of electricity the earth contains. It is difficult to say whether we shall ever acquire this necessary knowledge, but there is hope that we may, and that is, by means of electrical resonance. If ever we can ascertain at what period the earth's charge, when disturbed, oscillates with respect to an oppositely electrified system or known circuit, we shall know a fact possibly of the greatest importance to the welfare of the human race. I propose to seek for the period by means of an electrical oscillator, or a source of alternating electric currents. One of the terminals of the source would be connected to earth as, for instance, to the city water mains, the other to an insulated body of large surface. It is possible that the outer conducting air strata, or free space, contain an opposite charge and that, together with the earth, they form a condenser of very large capacity. In such case the period of vibration may be very low and an alternating dynamo machine might serve for the purpose of the experiment. I would then transform the current to a potential as high as it would be found possible and connect the ends of the high tension secondary to the ground and to the insulated body. By varying the frequency of the currents and carefully observing the potential of the insulated body and watching for the disturbance at various neighboring points of the earth's surface resonance might be detected. Should, as the majority of scientific men in all probability believe, the period be extremely small, then a dynamo machine would not do and a proper electrical oscillator would have to be produced and perhaps it might not be possible to obtain

such rapid vibrations. But whether this be possible or not, and whether the earth contains a charge or not, and whatever may be its period of vibration, it certainly is possible—for of this we have daily evidence—to produce some electrical disturbance sufficiently powerful to be perceptible by suitable instruments at any point of the earth's surface.

Is this how radio works? Or is this “radio” something that does not yet exist? And probably will NEVER exist?. How can you say that Tesla invented radio based on this? This is preposterous!!!!! know that even the “Tesla Coil” was not invented by Tesla!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Altes2009 (talk • contribs) 04:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I have deleted some of the stuff on Tesla and references to 'father of radio' for both Tesla and Marconi. These are mainly remnants of a battle long ago between avid Tesla supporters and others here. I still think the Tesla section needs rewriting from a modern perspective rather than Tesla's original misconceptions. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:57, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Patent section

This section actually shows very little except that some of Marconi's patents were overturned in the US because of prior art. It has little to do with the invention of radio and should be heavily trimmed. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:33, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I propose to delete this section again as it has no relevance to the invention of radio. Does anyone object? Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:08, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Your minimalist editing doesn't, i.m.h.o., serve to create a higher quality, more informative article. 'Less' does not necessarily mean 'more', so long as the article's text and sections are balanced and reliable. Your deletion of "Radio patent decision" within the Tesla vs. Marconi section seems to defy quality editing given that the article's lede directly states:
To pretend that the U.S. Supreme Court's judgment on Tesla vs. Marconi was historically unimportant and not worthy of inclusion within this article does a disservice to Wikipedia's readership, i.m.h.o., who I'm fairly sure, would want to known what the highest court in the United States ruled on radio patents and why it did so.
The History of radio article should offer a general history, including concise views of the technology's invention, while by definition this article should provide detailed knowledge on the main arguments on who had what part in the early invention and development of radio. Reducing the history of radio's invention to a few paragraphs, or eliminating this article in its entirety hardly seems like the hallmark of a quality encyclopedic writing and editing, and would likely detract from offering its readers '...the sum of all knowledge'. HarryZilber (talk) 18:00, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
I what way was this judgment important? It did not decide (or even claim to decide) who actually invented radio. It was a decision with commercial significance for Marconi, but that is about all. It may be worthy of mention but not in so much detail. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:17, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
A reread of the section found it cogent and on-topic. Perhaps you have a different perspective of what encyclopedic articles should offer their viewers, and I'd be interested in hearing what other editors feel about it. HarryZilber (talk) 21:03, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps you could tell me what it has to do with the invention of radio. The case is essentially about patents relating to some important features of Marconi's radio designs. The were held invalid in the US because of prior art. Martin Hogbin (talk)

However you would like to define 'radio', a number of reliable sources associate the Tesla vs. Marconi Supreme Court decision with the early invention and development period of radio. According to technology historian Mary Bellis, the case you describe as "essentially about patents relating to some important features of Marcononi's radio designs", is directly tied to the patents of radio technology; where she wrote:

" In addition to Marconi, two of his contemporaries Nikola Tesla and Nathan Stufflefield took out patents for wireless radio transmitters. Nikola Tesla is now credited with being the first person to patent radio technology; the Supreme Court overturned Marconi's patent in 1943 in favor of Tesla."

Michael Noll wrote in Principles Of Modern Communications Technology, Artech House, 2001, ISBN 1580532845:

"After lengthy battles between Tesla and Marconi, the United States Supreme Court ruled, in 1943, that Tesla's radio patents had anticipated Marconi and all others. But Marconi did make valuable contributions to the development of radio".

These views are also echoed by others:

I suspect that your interpretation of how 'radio' is defined is used as your basis to include or exclude the physics discoveries and related patents, and thus is used as a basis to exculpate material from articles that you deem unrelated. I would recommend a more holistic view of invention processes, such as the editing in Invention of the telephone which does not limit its descriptions to the historically popular inventor Alexander Graham Bell, but describes the numerous contributions and patent fights involved by many during the heroic era of invention.

Best: HarryZilber (talk) 14:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Delete or Rationalise - informal RFC

Bearing in mind that we have the article History of radio, the only purpose that this article might serve is to is to present a fair, accurate, balanced, and well sourced, answer to the (essentially unanswerable) question 'who invented radio'. At the moment It still has many of the the remnants of a battle between avid Tesla supporters and others.

What is the general feeling now? Should this article be deleted? If not, what is its purpose and how should it best achieve this? Martin Hogbin (talk)

If there is no response here, I will propose this article for deletion. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:09, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Martin, as noted in the discussion item above, I object to your proposed deletion of this article. By way of concrete support, I also offer to cover the article's carbon footprint on Wikipedia's servers for the next ten years. Would that be sufficient to let the article live? HarryZilber (talk) 18:00, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
OK, so what purpose does the article serve that is not covered by the History of radio article? Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
maybe it will keep the History of radio clean(er).Wdl1961 (talk) 18:57, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

To restate what was offered in the preceeding discussion item: The History of radio article should provide a general history, including concise views of the technology's invention, while by definition this article should provide detailed knowledge on the main arguments on who had what part in the early invention and development of radio. Reducing the history of radio's invention to a few paragraphs, or eliminating this article in its entirety hardly seems like the hallmark of a quality encyclopedic writing and editing.....".

Let me turn your question around to you: In what way would a detailed examination of the history of the radio's invention detract from either this encyclopedia or its readers?

My carbon-footprint offer still stands, b.t.w. HarryZilber (talk) 21:03, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I am sure the use of resources by the article is insignificant. I am more concerned about readers being confused by two very similar articles. If your plan is that this article should be a 'detailed examination of the history of the radio's invention' that is fine with me. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:09, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
That should be everyone's plan: a) a generalized parent article, History of radio, which has concise descriptions of the physical discoveries and inventions related to radio, as well as the histories of programming, content, social impact, etceteras....., and then b) detailed subsidiary articles such as this one which provide detailed knowledge and analysis of the various branches. Good examples of such parent/child editing are readily viewable such as in Wind turbine. Best: HarryZilber (talk) 15:44, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
If you look at the History of radio article it is quite similar to this one and in some cases has less detail. What sort of thing do you envisage going in this article? Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:31, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I suggest that Telephone, the History of the telephone and the Invention of the telephone can serve as good models, where invention in the History article has been summarized into two sections, with a high level of invention detail described in the latter article. The same approach can be adopted in this instance, and then the History article can be enhanced with extra sections on programming and the development of radio as a social medium with significant social impact. Currently the History article has very few of those non-technical topics. Thus, my view of radio articles would encompass:

  • Radio -an article with only brief descriptions of radio's invention and development;
  • History of radio -providing further, but not intensive detail on the invention and development of radio, plus the histories of programing and social impacts, etceteras...; and
  • Invention of radio -discussing invention and development in fine detail.

A certain amount of overlap is expected and not undesirable, i.m.h.o., for the convenience of the readership. Best: HarryZilber (talk) 00:33, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

That looks good to me. I would add that this article should attempt to answer the (essentially unanswerable) question of who invented radio. I think it is important to remain objective in doing this. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:56, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

veriviability

Verifiability list for an invention template (no thinking required):

First nationality or culture with the idea for qqqq.

First one to make a drawing.

First one to get an patent.

First one to publish his results.

First one to build one.

First to have it work at all .

First to have it work for more than xx minutes.

First one that uses zzz material.

First to have one that is practical.

First one that is a commercial success .


No claims are made for completeness of the list but feel free to expand it.

No claims are made this applies to anything other than machines.

Any of the above will work especially if it is your corner (nationality)

Wdl1961 (talk) 03:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Wdl1961 (talk) 15:28, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

In this article "Teslaphiles" hit again by hiding the sheer truth which is: ONLY MARCONI IS THE INVENTOR OF THE RADIO !!

Tesla's supporters have been able to kill the history of science also in this occasion!!! What can we deduce from this crap article ???? So If we'd imagine all the protagonists of the radio invention parading in paradise (or hell, who knows it...),God seeing Marconi would ask: and who is that guy? The answer would be: Oh just an italian door to door seller fraudster who commercialized tha radio !!!This is what I deduce from this article. ARE YOU CRAZY ???? If you want to delegitimate someone you could do it in a better and less ridiculous way. 1) Marconi's law H=square(D) is the law on which is based every radio apparatus (not bad for a door to door seller). The genius Tesla didn't produce any formula, theorem, law...nothing of nothing in any field !! 2) In the Tesla's system the primary winding was made up of a few turn of a tick wire while the secondary was composed of milion of coil of a thin wire. In the Marconi apparatus the primary was composed of the number of turns capable to define with the condenser the right wave lenght, while the secondary was made up of few turns in order to get in accordance with the radiation resistance of the antenna. Without these expedients the low antenna's efficiency would have become so low not allow any long distance comunication(not bad for a door to door seller). In the Tesla's patents nothing similar exist !!!!!! 3) Marconi's antenna could change wave lenghts just by adding inductances, only Marconi's vertical antenna could do it!! (not bad for a door to door seller). 4)Marconi apparatus allowed the receiver to switch into transmitter and viceversa, it could work in duplex. (not bad for a door to door seller.) 5) The experiences of other researchers (Lodge, Righi, Bose, Tesla..)were well known to the scientific comunity, yet their power transmission were limited to the laboratory's walls and none of them was ever hailed by their contemporary as "inventor of radio" !!! None of them received comments like: "...The first time radiotelegraphy happened was when Marconi connected his receiver wire and his transmitter wire to the ground and generated a sparkle. This was the first radiotelegraphic wave and not an hertzian wave. If we should call it we could name it Marconi's wave...." by Michael Pupin one of the greatest scientist of that time. "...... Only a few inventions are completely new and the wireless transmission is one of that. Marconi not only gave it to us but he also lived with it and developed it...." by Charles Steinmetz, the greatest electrical engineer of that time (working togheter with Tesla). "..Guglielmo Marconi le pere de la radio...." Popov, russian scientist, one of other contender in the invention of the radio. 7) Saying that Marconi had some predecessors (Dolbear, Loomis, Stubblefield, Tesla, Lodge, Popov...) in the wireless invention is completely wrong.They all tried without achieving any practical results. Marconi apparatus is a completely brand new technology and only Marconi got the following results: 1895- With his receiver he could reach 2500 m 1896- He could sent messages crossing an hill (1200m height) put as obstacle and reaching 3500 m distance. 1897-He could surpass earth curvature, the ionospheric one in 1899 and tropospheric 5 years before his death. (not bad for a door to door seller). Could the genius Tesla did something similar?? 8)Between 1895 and 1899, Tesla claimed (the greatest claimer in the history of science !!!!)to have received wireless signals transmitted over long distances, there is no independent evidence to support it !!!! 9) All the radio apparatus followed Marconi's system after 1896, none reproduced Tesla's system (which never existed). Other attempts to follow different technologies failed miserably !!! 10) Only Marconi deserved the Nobel since Braun started getting interested in wireless only in 1898. 11)The US 1943 sentences about the 7777 patent never stated that Tesla or others was the inventor of the radio, indeed it confirms the Marconi's paternity on the invention !!!!!!!

The conclusions are:: Marconi created the only engineering system capable to comunicate at long distance. HE IS THE ONLY INVENTOR OF THE RADIO !!!!!!!! You show Marconi just as sleazy bussinesman fraudster just capable to tell the rate cost of a radio apparatus to customers around the world. It is a shame that people by digiting "radio" on google run accross this crap article. sometimes I think that wikipedia should be closed and some of his authors persecuted !!! Magnagr (talk) 11:26, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Although this article was once plagued by Teslaphiles, I believe that it now reasonably balanced. It is quite obvious that radio was not the invention of one person but a continuous development from before Maxwell to the present day. The article now reflects this. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:47, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
If by using and taking other's developments and calling it your own [eg., Marconi] entitles one to claim invention, then so be it. One person had more influence on the development of radio, though the article doesn't reflect it well thanks to Teslabusters. Radio was, though, not solely invention of one single person alone and the article is reflective of this. J. D. Redding 17:49, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
The other scientists didn't achieved anything worth. A thing is to move a small boat within few meters another is to send signals miles away surpassing phisical obstacles. The experiences of Bose, Tesla and others were well known but none of them was hailed as the inventor of radio for the simple reason that radiotransmission means just one thing: sending signals on long distances!! And Marconi was the only and first one capable of that. That Marconi just created something by assembling parts invented by others is another lie. He built the first radioreceiver in history (which was different from that one of anyone else including Tesla) and was his radioreceiver which made the difference between Hertzian few meters toys radiocomanded demonstrations performed by the other scientists and his long distance radio transmission. The thing that hurts me more is that not only- on the different wikipedia articles about radio- has been given the same room (or even more) of Marconi to almost un-heard people but that he has been described as a "grease soprano style" italian fraudster just capable to sell things invented by others.Thing which is epitomized in the infamous speech: "Marconi commercialized the radio". I hope that those who write the articles on radio will correct the same asap giving to Marconi the right space and merits. All the dictatorships start by mistiyfying history. There is only a radio inventor and is: GUGLIELMO MARCONI !! Magnagr (talk) 07:54, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
No page states that Marconi "grease soprano style" italian fraudster. Now, Tesla did call Marconi a "Donkey", but i don't think that that would be appropriate to an article. Links please on the 'style' accusation?
Other scientists did achieve things.
Marconi did developed a system, yes. That system was predated by various inventions. Got a link for the claim of 'first radioreceiver in history'?
Sincerely, --J. D. Redding 17:47, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the article could be more focused on the question of who invented radio but it must not turn into a battle between Marconi and Tesla. The three main inventors in my opinion are:

Maxwell, who theoretically predicted EM radiation and whose equations are still used in all radio design today.

Hertz, who was the first to intentionally transmit and receive EM radiation, based on the work of Maxwell.

Marconi, who was the first to make it work over useful distances.

Then maybe I would add Fessenden, who was probably the first to send voice and music by radio. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:39, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Hogbin, you fail to realize that without the ELF RF alternator of Tesla, radio communication would not have progressed. Sad really ... J. D. Redding 04:52, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Not so. RF alternators were only used for a relatively brief period after spark transmitters and before the invention of the valve (vacuum tube). Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:22, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
And don't forget Édouard Branly and his coherer that Marconi adapted. Dicklyon (talk) 06:04, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
btw, Tesla's detectors and controllers had a greater sensitivity than the alternative coherers. FWIW ... --J. D. Redding 06:05, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
I do not dispute that many inventors including Branly and Tesla contributed greatly to the development of radio but I stick to my 3 or 4 as the real inventors of radio. We really need to find some high quality and non-partisan secondary or tertiary sources to improve this article. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:42, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Radio technology originated in villa Griffone of Pontecchio in the august of 1895: Marconi was an "outsider" in the world of science but he was able to create the first original engineering apparatus capable of sending transmission at long distance. The systems of the other scientists didn't work. Calzecchi -Onesti invented what would have been called the coherer, so should we state that Calzecchi-Onesti is the inventor of the radio? Marconi created the first radioreceiver capable of sending long distance signals, only Marconi's radioreceiver had the characteristics to do it. Tesla's system (as I explained before) was different from that one of Marconi and would have never worked !!!! We must be grateful to the US judges that in 1943 confirmed Marconi's paternity of radio. In WWII USA was in war with Italy and Marconi sympathized for the fascist regime but they were not influenced by that and kept their impartiality. In that occasion was highlighted the fact that Oliver Lodge's patents didn't contemplate an open circuit tuning, so he didn't have any validity for telecomunication purposes. Their final conclusion was that: " The fact that the Marconi's discoveries didn't create any scientific progress, since these kind of progresses had already being previewed, is just the result of a fallacious retrospective vision".I'm really discouraged, I don't know why I should keep on remembering things that are evidents, and defend a man that shouldn't being defended since is clear what amazing things he was able to achieve. Yet, in all wikipedia articles about radio, Marconi is just barely remembered as a dodgy businessman. I repeat myself, it's like writing an article on the discovery of America without never mentioning Columbus, or just saying about him:" Yes, he is just a guy that took profit from the discovery of America by becoming an admiral of the spanish navy". No offence but I'm so appalled to think how many people (especially youngster) could have taken such an amount of wrong informations in wikipedia about the invention of radio (and I hope to mend it soon). There is just one "forgotten genius" and this is Guglielmo Marconi. Magnagr (talk) 12:12, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
It really is silly to suggest that Marconi did it all. Without the theoretical work of Maxwell there would have been rational no basis for anyone to attempt wireless communication. That would not have stopped people (like Loomis for example) from trying random ideas with no chance of success but it took Hertz, who understood Maxwell's theory properly, to demonstrate that it could be done in practice. Marconi just did it better. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:21, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
From being completely forgotten to be recognized as one of the main personality involved in the invention of radio is a step forward. I don't require Marconi to be depicted as the only protagonist in the article about the invention of the radio, but I don't want that it could happen with other personality (e.g Tesla), since the right merits should go only to the right people and Marconi should deserve most of them (merits). I'm planning to make many modifications to the article but I want to make them with the wider consensus by the other authors. I think we can start with:
1) In 1895 Marconi didn't transmit at 1.5 km but at 1.5 miles http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1909/marconi-bio.html
2) Saying that: "many of Marconi's system components were developed by others" is a completely pointless affirmation since the originality of Marconi apparatus is ascertained and the prove is that not only before the 1895 none was capable of sending long distance signals but also after the Marconi's experiences none was able to reproduce the radiotransmission system of the italian scientist and achieve the same performances. Moreover every invention, since the discovery of fire, is based on things developed by others. Should we think that in the Tesla's patents all the components presents were developed by Tesla himself ??If we reason in this way we should give the paternity of the radio invention to Hertz and don't go further.
3)Saying that Tesla "in 1891 ....... demonstrated devices using power without the use of wires" can be deceptive for the reader since he can come to the conclusion: Well, if Tesla in 1891 used power without wires it means that he invented the radio while, I repeat again, radiotrasmission means only sending signals at long distance !!!! That experience was one of the many around the world performed by many scientists, there is nothing revolutionary: it didn't achieve long distance transmission!!Therefore the sentence must be modified. Magnagr (talk) 14:13, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
I think that the defamatory sentence: "... 1896, Marconi introduced to the public a device in London, asserting it was his invention. Despite Marconi's statements to the contrary, though, the apparatus resembles Tesla's descriptions in the widely translated articles.[20] Marconi's later practical four-tuned system was pre-dated by N. Tesla, Oliver Lodge, and J. S. Stone.[21] He filed a patent on his system with the British Patent Office on June 2, 1896...." could be immediately erased. The systems of the others inventors were completely useless. Marconi got his Nobel prize in 1909, 14 years after his first long distance transmission !!! I repeat 14 years !!! All the patents were known, there was all the time to discover, judge and sentence Marconi if he was a plagiarist(as you describe him). Please erase this silly sentence asap !!Magnagr (talk) 14:51, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Generally I agree with you Magnagr. There are still remnants of a Tesla/Marconi war in this article that need to be removed. You are just as entitled to remove them as anybody else. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:52, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
DO NOT remove cited reliable and verified information. J. D. Redding
If ya want to help the content ... find referenced information. Expand the article. Please do not remove facts. --J. D. Redding 12:43, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Tesla

This article already fairly, if not excessively, represents Tesla's contribution to the invention of radio. The fact that Tesla's patents were cited as prior art in a US patent case does not strengthen Testla's case to be the the inventor of radio any more than it does the case for all the other inventor's cited. This was a political and commercial dispute which has very little to do with the subject of this article. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:48, 10 May 2010 (UTC).

How does the following dispute have nothing to do with the invention of radio? It has everything to do with the invention of radio! Especially the last sentence! J. D. Redding 16:22, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The last sentence is nothing new or surprising it is normal way of determining priority for any patent. It does not in any way credit Tesla with the invention of radio, it merely shows the courts rational for not upholding Marconi's claim. Tesla was not even a party to this dispute, his work was quoted as an example of some of the prior art relevant to the patent dispute. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:59, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

No. The case restored the priority Tesla's patent [by default, one would have to understand the history of the subject though]. Please don't remove relevant historical and legal information by reputable sources. I'll give ya some time to restore it. J. D. Redding 17:44, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Please explain how this section is relevant to the article, which is about the invention of radio. Nothing in this dispute is relevant to deciding who invented radio. At best it just shows that, in the US only, some of Tesla's features of radio were considered to pre-date Marconi's later patent thus invalidating it. The court itself said, 'the court, therefore, did not consider the issue of whether Marconi was the inventor of radio...'. In any case there is far too much detail. If this case were relevant to the invention of radio then a single sentence on it would be appropriate in the article. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:27, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
The article is about the invention of radio.
Tesla's development of the fundamental engineering and design of devices pre-date Marconi's borrowed designs (at best; some say stolen) ... thus invalidating his claim to the invention of radio. Maybe you should look up John Stone Stone's work on Nikola Tesla's priority in radio and continuous-Wave radio frequency apparatus. Or consult the IEEE, who stated the Tesla's early 1894 designs contained all the parts of radio except the vacuum tube.
I am not disputing Tesla's invention of certain aspects of radio design or that some of his inventions may pre-date some or Marconi's designs. These do not, however, invalidate any claim Marconi may have to be the inventor of radio. The court made this perfectly clear. The IEEE statement was made during the brief period when alternator CW transmitters were common. Tesla did indeed play an important role in the invention and design of was later developed into the Alexanderson alternator. This method of generating radio waves was soon overtaken by use of the vacuum tube. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:06, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Furthermore, Marconi "borrowed" the others' inventions and claimed it as his own ... such as by Nikola Tesla, Oliver Lodge and John Stone Stone [among others]. As a side note, he only formally recognized some of thee facts in his nobel address, as to the detector. The court did not address centrally the issue of whether Marconi was the inventor of radio. It does state that, "Marconi's reputation as the man who first achieved successful radio transmission rests on his original patent." [...] but more importantly it states, "It is well established that 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." That was done by Tesla in his lectures of alternating current of high frequency and high voltage.
You last statement by the court is nothing particular to this case it is a remark that might apply to any patent dispute. The inventions that the court were referring to in this case were those of specific components and methods use by Marconi, where the court held that Marconi was not the first to conceive of these components or methods. Marconi lost a battle over certain patents that would have made him money from the US government, that is all. The concept of transmitting a signal by means of electromagnetism had, of course, been conceived long before Tesla's lectures (by Hughes and Henry for a start). Tesla believed he had an alternative to Hertzian waves, a concept which subsequently proved to be completely incorrect. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:06, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
The court did not centrally consider the issue of whether Marconi was the inventor of radio, since his original patent was not at issue nor, as they stated, being disputed in this particular proceeding. I do agree that the suit contains the Marconi patents over commercial device was a conglomeration of others inventions. This was a commercial device which has very little to do with initial invention
Agreed. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:06, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
But it's key to point out that Macaroni's series of patents here in this case were invalid. His transatlantic devices were not 'original'. Marconi himself acknowledges others in his Nobel speech (IIRC), though not his commercial competitors. He openly acknowledges his activities and his co-award winner's activities.
I think it is well known and made clear in the article that Marconi was not the inventor of every part of his radio equipment. Personally I see Marconi as more of a Bill Gates character than an inventor. His main claim to fame was his successful commercialisation of radio. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:06, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Do note, the earlier Marconi British patent mirror's the Tesla lecture of AC of HV HF. His lecture was, at the time of it's publication, and is, currently, widely known. As to the other Tesla patents, an example is the U.S. Patent 454,622, System of Electric Lighting, filed 1891 June 23. This is the disclosure of a practical RF power supply capable of exciting an antenna to emit powerful electromagnetic radiation.
Yes, more experiments with Tesla's high (for the time) frequency alternator. Perhaps we should mention this subsequent development of Tesla's invention into the Alexanderson alternator.Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:06, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Omitting facts [eg., "one line" sentence] and stating other misleading facts [Marconi British patent's versus Tesla later patents] does the reader no good. The history of the article can elucidate the construction of the present sentences ... and how that lines got put into the section. And how to correct and {{expand}} the current section.
What facts do you claim are misstated. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:06, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
It is, indeed, laughable to state Marconi patent predates Tesla inventions ... as it misses the fact that Tesla lectures and patents contain the devices that were the basis of radio. His public lectures contain the devices, as J. S. Stone and others recount. I would highly recommend people interested in the subject to read J.S. Stone's work on the subject.
The court though otherwise and so do most historians of the subject. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:06, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
How is there too much detail? In fact, there should be more detail. Please explain how there is too much detail? Omission of the facts is not acceptable. Please restore the relevant historical and legal information by reputable sources.
J. D. Redding 00:24, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
The whole case could be summed up by saying that some of Marconi's US patents on improvements in apparatus for wireless telegraphy were declared invalid because of prior art by Lodge, Stone, and Tesla. Do we really need the names of all the judges? Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:06, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Section in question

In 1943 a lawsuit regarding Marconi's US radio patents was resolved by the United States Supreme Court, who overturned most of these. The Marconi Company brought this suit in the Court of Claims to recover damages for infringement of four United States patents. Two, U.S. patent 763,772 and U.S. patent RE11913, were issued to Marconi, a third, U.S. patent 609,154, to Lodge, and a fourth, U.S. patent 803,684, to Fleming. The court held that the Marconi reissue patent was not infringed.

Marconi v. United States
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued April 9, 12, 1943
Decided June 21, 1943
Full case nameMarconi Wireless Telegraph co. of America v. United States, United States v. Marconi Wireless Telegraph co. of America
Citations320 U.S. 1 (more)
Holding
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.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Harlan F. Stone
Associate Justices
Owen Roberts · Hugo Black
Stanley F. Reed · Felix Frankfurter
William O. Douglas · Frank Murphy
Robert H. Jackson · Wiley B. Rutledge
Case opinions
MajorityStone, joined by Roberts, Black, Reed, Douglas, Jackson, Rutledge
DissentRutledge
DissentFrankfurter
Murphy took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.

In its consideration of radio communication systems, the United States courts accepted a "definition evolved out of the exhaustive depositions taken from many technical experts..."[3] as requiring "two tuned circuits each at the transmitter and receiver, all four tuned to the same frequency."[3][4][5]

Priority of Marconi and Tesla US Patents

The court found Marconi showed no invention over Stone (U.S. patent 714,756) by making the tuning of his antenna circuit adjustable, or by using Lodge's variable inductance for that purpose. The court decision was based on the proven prior work conducted by others, such as by Nikola Tesla, Oliver Lodge, and John Stone Stone, from which some of Marconi patents stemmed. At the time, the United States Army was involved in a patent infringement lawsuit with Marconi's company regarding radio, leading various observers to posit that the government nullified Marconi's other patents in order to moot any claims for compensation (as, it is speculated, the government's initial reversal to grant Marconi the patent right in order to nullify any claims Tesla had for compensation).

The U. S. Supreme Court stated that,

"The Tesla patent No. 645,576, applied for September 2, 1897 and allowed March 20, 1900, 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. [... He] recognized that his apparatus could, without change, be used for wireless communication, which is dependent upon the transmission of electrical energy."[6]

In making their decision, the court noted,

"Marconi's reputation as the man who first achieved successful radio transmission rests on his original patent, which became reissue No. 11,913, and which is not here [320 U.S. 1, 38] in question. That reputation, however well-deserved, does not entitle him to a patent for every later improvement which he claims in the radio field. Patent cases, like others, must be decided not by weighing the reputations of the litigations, but by careful study of the merits of their respective contentions and proofs."[7] The court, therefore, did not consider the issue of whether Marconi was the inventor of radio, since his original patent was not at issue nor, as they stated, being disputed in this particular proceeding. This is because Marconi's original patent was filed with the British Patent Office on June 2, 1896 and therefore pre-dated Tesla's Patent No. 645,576, applied for September 2, 1897 by more than one year.

The court also stated that,

"It is well established that 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."[7]

Pertinent?

The patent battle is of very little relevance to this article. No patent was ever issued for the invention of radio, just for certain techniques. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:14, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
As seen below in this talk page ... these references are need to verify the four-circuit system and other facts. J. D. Redding
This really should be included. --J. D. Redding 07:40, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

EoS

End of sectioin.

The Marconi Company brought this suit in the Court of Claims pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 68, 35 U.S.C.A. 68, to recover damages for infringement of four United States patents. Two, No. 763,772, and reissue No. 11,913, were issued to Marconi, a third, No. 609,154, to Lodge, and a fourth, No. 803,684, to Fleming. The court held that the Marconi reissue patent was not infringed. It held also that the claims in suit, other than Claim 16, of the Marconi patent No. 763,772, are invalid; and that Claim 16 of the patent is valid and was infringed. It gave judgment for petitioner on this claim in the sum of $42,984.93 with interest. It held that the Lodge patent was valid and infringed, and that the Fleming patent was not infringed and was rendered void by an improper disclaimer. The case comes here on certiorari, 317 U.S. 620 , 63 S.Ct. 263, 87 L.Ed. --; 28 U.S.C. 288- [320 U.S. 1, 4] (b), 28 U.S.C.A. 288(b), on petition of the Marconi Company in No. 369, to review the judgment of the Court of Claims holding invalid the claims in suit, other than Claim 16, of the Marconi patent, and holding the Fleming patent invalid and not infringed, and on petition of the Government in No. 373, to review the decision allowing recovery for infringement of Claim 16 of the Marconi patent. No review was sought by either party of so much of the court's judgment as sustained the Lodge patent and held the first Marconi reissue patent not infringed. http://www.radiomarconi.com/marconi/popov/sentenza.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.1.57.135 (talk) 10:41, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Claim 16 can be found here ...

... That claim was widely known. As seen from prior discussion above this section on the talk page. J. D. Redding 00:12, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments on modification

These are the comments to the modifications. No reference has been cancelled. 1)Putting marconi (or Popov) in the paragraph “early commercial exploitation” has no sense, Does it mean that radio had already been invented while Popov and Marconi were just able to took profit from it?? 2)“Marconi's early apparatus was a development of Hertz’s laboratory apparatus into a system designed for communications purposes” (pointless: all the “radio” apparatus originated from Hertz experiences)3)“….a detector developed by Edouard Branly and other experimenters.” Pointless. Calzecchi Onesti invented the coherer before Brainly. Why you always stress that Marconi used components developed by others. Had Tesla invented himself coils, oscillator etc, etc???4)“…By 1896, Marconi introduced to the public a device in London, asserting it was his invention. Despite Marconi's statements to the contrary, though, the apparatus resembles Tesla's descriptions in the widely translated articles.[20]”.is just a too direct anti-Marconi sentence/modified5)“Marconi's later practical four-tuned system was pre-dated by N. Tesla, Oliver Lodge, and J. S. Stone [21] “is not a reference but just an anti-Marconi comment by the author6) “Marconi's reputation is largely based on these accomplishments in radio communications and commercializing a practical system. His demonstrations of the use of radio for wireless communications, equipping ships with life saving wireless communications, establishing the first transatlantic radio service, and building the first stations for the British short wave service, have marked his place in history.” His place in history was not marked by equipping ships or by the commercializing of the radio !!!7)"….for contributions to the existing radio sciences” . you want to pass the idea that the radio had already been invented 8)“…..Many of Marconi's system components were developed by others.[64] Oliver Lodge claimed British patent of 1900 to contain his own ideas which he failed to patent”…another shameful comment. The 64 is not a reference but a sentence interpretation.9)Transatlantic transmission. I left this paragraph untouched (for the moment). It s one of the longest of the whole article and it is just about an episode regarding a polemic against Marconi (as most of the article) I find it excessive and unfit to the article structure. I guess to have modified an "Anti-Marconi" article about the invention of the radio into a more balanced invention of the radio article. Maybe, more modification have to be carried out. Magnagr (talk) 12:27, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

1)Popov and Marconi were able profit from it.
2) ... all the “radio” apparatus originated from Maxwell's experiences.
3) (A.) Marconi used components developed by others. This is a fact. (B.) Marconi's later practical four-tuned system was pre-dated by N. Tesla, Oliver Lodge, and J. S. Stone. Another fact.
4)"….for contributions to the existing radio sciences” Marconi did not develop this alone. (See 3A)
5) Many of Marconi's system components were developed by others. (see 4 and 3)
Sincerely, J. D. Redding 12:33, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
I've changed an anti- Marconi article into an article. I could have created an anti- Tesla article but I didn't. Not a bad word has been introduced in the article against Tesla. I've not erased a single reference but just personal comments of the author passed off as reference. On the contrary my reference has been erased.
I think that some authors of this articles have already made so much damage by giving just a personal and unattended vision of facts about the invention of radio.
I wrongly believed in a existing good-faith among wikipedia authors. I fully explained my points with my previous comments.
As I imagined my undeserved tolerant and conciliatory attitude has been betrayed. Magnagr (talk) 13:58, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
I think you are taking this matter much too personally. No one is out to betray you. It is time to read WP:COOL and calm down. The topic obviously needs further discussion and development, and Reddi has offered specific guidance. Everything introduced must be verifiable, without removing "cited reliable and verified information". I am re-reverting your edit. Let's not have an edit war. In good faith, Hertz1888 (talk) 14:57, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Nothing is touching me personally. The fact is the wikipedia page is the first one seen by people (especially youngster) when they search for informations on internet. And it's not about cite reference, I could create an article glorifying Marconi with other references. I'm just reporting the official and accepted history, you are just describing your personal and not-rigorous vision of the events. Marconi got the Nobel for the invention of radio not Tesla, the judges around the world got 14 years to discover if Marconi had been a plagiarist (as u describe him) but they never sentenced against him. Marconi was the first one to achieve succesful radio transmission.....what do u want more !?!?!?!?!? My version must be the one published, not yours, since mine is neutral and not partisan as yours. I'm ready to have an atomic war and not only an edit one if I don't see my modification accepted  !Magnagr (talk) 15:20, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't have a version. I want to see the policies on neutrality and verifiability strictly followed. WP is not about what you think or what I think. If you insist on an edit war or "atomic war" you will quickly find yourself blocked or banned. Hertz1888 (talk) 15:47, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Don't worry, I know that my fate will be to be banned from WP, truth is always difficult to accept. If you consider the version you are editing as neutral I hope never to meet you as referee. I'm not exposing my thoughts but just the universally accepted and never confuted sequence of facts behind the invention of radio. By continuously re-editing my version you show to be the only belligerent, not me. Magnagr (talk) 16:34, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
At this point, it's about your behavior, not about content (regarding which I am not taking sides). If you are censured for disruptive editing, it will not be about suppressing truth. The path to collaborative editing has been available. You have chosen instead to edit war, and are in violation of the 3-reversion rule. Hertz1888 (talk) 17:13, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Is there any rule in WP stating that your words worth more than mine? That entitle you to have more rights than me to edit the favourite version, please let me understand.
It is maybe the fact that you have an older WP account than mine or that you have written about the invention of the radio before me? Let me know please. I'm really curious. Magnagr (talk) 18:48, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

They are not my words, and I have not been editing them. You are not getting the message. You have been reverted (repeatedly, and by multiple editors), and per WP:BRD the next step in the cycle is to discuss the details of the edits and seek consensus collaboratively with other editors for any changes. Per WP:AGF, this means discussing the edits, not the editors. Reddi has given an outline (above) that can serve as a starting point for such a discussion. Hertz1888 (talk) 19:10, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Hertz1888, let us discuss the issues here. Like Hertz1888, I am looking for a NPOV and verifiable article. This article must not turn into a Marconi/Tesla war. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:19, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
It is evident that the article has been planned in order to discredit Marconi (also a 5 year old boy could realize it). My new version is not focused in discrediting Tesla and glorify Marconi, it is just a NPOV and balanced version regarding the invention of the radio. Magnagr (talk) 23:44, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Magnagr, if you want to effectively propose change to the article, start by taking one sentence or small section at a time and describing why you think it should be changed. Be sure to provide reliably sourced references to support your position. The editors here are being patient with you, and will consider your proposals. Making blanket statements like "the article has been planned in order to discredit Marconi" won't accomplish anything for you or Marconi. You just need to follow acceptable procedures if you want to engage in effective editing and discussion at Wikipedia. Wildbear (talk) 01:10, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

1)The section : “early commercial exploitation” where Popov and Marconi are placed is to my opinion not necessary and deceptive. Marconi was the creator of the first wireless system capable of sending long distance signals. He was a scientist and inventor and not a door to door seller only able to sell things created by others (the section gives this idea). I propose to erase the section "early commercial exploitation" or radically change it. Once received your comments I can continue with the remaining points.Magnagr (talk) 10:03, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

... one of the the first wireless devices were created by Edison. Thomas Edison noted a phenomenon that he termed "etheric force". He got Patent 465,971, Means for Transmitting Signals Electrically (December 29, 1891).
Marconi was the creator of the first wireless system that used borrowed tech of the coherer ... Poldhu had alternators developed by others ... and the grounded antenna that was mentioned in the Franklin lectures. The spark gap system was widely known [hertz]. Marconi's patent round the time long distance transmission would have been 676,332, this four tuned technology was predated by others.
As to the section header "early commercial exploitation" ... is it the exploitation term? That is to denote 'capitalist utilization'.
Sincerely, --J. D. Redding 17:31, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Franklin, the etheric force?? No offence, but a little of decency is required. Continuing in this way we'll end up mentioning Archimedes in order to diminish Marconi's accomplishment....so all the components present in Tesla's patents were developed and invented by Tesla himself?? Did he discovered the electromagnetic induction, was the first one to create a coil.......  ? Why you don't point out as well that Tesla patents were based on components and concepts developed by others? We are in democracy ! Every one is equal. Capitalist utilization? I'd like to remember you that in 1895 Tesla was a middle aged man living in the most capitalistic country in the world (USA) and working for a multinational which is the greatest expression of capitalistic greed, he was not working in a charity for free!!! Marconi was a 21 years penniless student when he sent his first signal in the same year. If Tesla didn't achieve any "capitalistic utilization" because he was not able to create any radio apparatus despite the best laboratories in the world you cannot put the blame on Marconi!! Magnagr (talk) 20:29, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Franklin lectures? Do you understand what i am referring to?!?
If I cannot carry on a intelligent conversation (avoiding fallacious statements), I don't see a real point in this ...
If you have some "secret" information on the components and concepts developed by others and credited to another scientist, please state them.
Sincerely, --J. D. Redding 20:36, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
I remember again: In the first Marconi's patent there was no Tesla's coil. Marconi's apparatus was an original system where a long vertical including a capacitive cap was used to irradiate in the space wave packages at a certain frequency and polarization. Since Marconi's system didn't contemplated any Tesla coil the wave packages length was depending only on the capacitance and inductance of the aerial conductors. Tesla's apparatus was not meant to be used for radiotransmission !! He wanted to use 20-30 milions of volts. In the Marconi apparatus it was not about to generate, as in the Tesla experience, high level voltages at high frequency with micro-current but alternating voltages at a set frequency and polarization with high level of current. Tesla was not able to repeat Marconi's results even after 1895. Marconi created the only working radiotransmission apparatus !!Magnagr (talk) 21:35, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Tesla's apparatus was not meant to be used for radio transmission? That is not the position of the IEEE. J. D. Redding 21:44, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Try to create radiontrasmission with a very "efficient" apparatus requiring 20-30 milion volts and conductors long miles: Good luck !! Magnagr (talk) 21:49, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
As to Tesla ... you are misconstruing the information in "On Light and Other High Frequency Phenomena" and "Experiments with Alternating Currents of High Potential and High Frequency". Have you read those lectures? The are available online.--J. D. Redding 21:59, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
BTW, in the first Marconi patents (I listed all his patents in that article), his devices were not viable commercially. Inefficient short range devices. This extremely early work by Marconi was based on the work of, among others, Hertz. Only later did he have a more efficient system long range system. J. D. Redding 21:53, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
In the first Marconi patents, his devices were not viable commercially ? Good point, another reason for not mentioning him under the section "early commercial exploitation" . RegardsMagnagr (talk) 22:12, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
No, his early devices were developed as a commercial venture. Later, devices were better in the market. That's the point. --J. D. Redding 22:19, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

The only way to add weight to your arguments is to find some high-quality, impartial, secondary/tertiary sources. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:06, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Impartial, secondary sources?I could easily answering you by asking to read only this web page: http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1909/marconi.html. It is the official site of the Nobel prize where is written that Marconi achieved long distance radio transmission in 1895. Achieving long distance radio transmission means having created the first radio apparatus. Had Tesla, Lodge or whoever achieved long distance radio transmission before Marconi, they would have been officialy recognized as the inventors of the first complete radio apparatus. It didn't happen, and in 14 years of livid jealousy against Marconi none could prove that Marconi had just merely assembled things invented by others, as the article says. The 1943 US sentence that many credited as an official source stating that Tesla invented the radio and not Marconi is just a groundless urban legend. I think that those who wrote this article should provide valid justifications to their affirmations and not me, unless you consider P.J.Papadopoulos a more rigorous source than the official site of the Nobel Prize. No scientist is now more overrated than Tesla and underrated than Marconi, thus often a not rigorous bibliography reflects this trend, anyway I don't have problem in providing high-quality, impartial, secondary/tertiary sources but at the moment I'm abroad and I can't use all the books in my library. A last things, I don't think it is possible and correct to pass off as references comments elaborated by the authors (as it happen in this article). Magnagr (talk) 17:35, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
The Nobel source is a good one for what the Nobel committee concluded, but does not trump all other sources. The article should report the various points of view fairly. Dicklyon (talk) 21:23, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, what we need are impartial sources that give a view on the relative contributions of scientists (not just Tesla and Marconi) to the invention of radio. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:33, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
1)"...The first time radiotelegraphy happened was when Marconi connected his receiver wire and his transmitter wire to the ground and generated a sparkle. This was the first radiotelegraphic wave and not an hertzian wave. If we should call it we could name it Marconi's wave...." by Michael Pupin
2)"...... Only a few inventions are completely new and the wireless transmission is one of that. Marconi not only gave it to us but he also lived with it and developed it...." by Charles Steinmetz
3) "..Guglielmo Marconi le pere de la radio...." by Popov.
Do you know who these people are? Well, were among the best scientist and electrical engineer of the time, who had worked as well in the radio domain and thus were all direct competitors with Marconi. But the most revealing sentence is another one by Charles Steinmetz who in 1922 said:
"Before Marconi presented his invention to the world none would have believed that he was able to make it while after many had already made it before him".
We are talking about more than 25 years after first Marconi's patent. Don't you think these are high quality and impartial sources? Are you able to provide some sentence of someone as much authoritative as the people I mentioned that during the same period said the same kind things about any other scientist in relationship with the invention of the radio?Magnagr (talk) 00:39, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
If talking about after radio was established, John Stone Stone made one of the most indepth studies of all the systems during the invention of radio. His monograph is one of the better treatise of the topics. Many more people were covered than in this document here and at greater lengths. Many claimed the right to the invention of radio.
Michael Pupin claimed that he invented radio for a time [I think that is in the cheney book on the life of Nikola Tesla] and Charles Steinmetz was part of the GE conglomerate. And initially they may have competed against Marconi (i don't remember, I'd have to look that up ... but I believe you are correct), but later backed him. This was after corporate negotiations were made by the Marconi syndicate and other radio enterprises in the early age of radio (and which is beyond the scope of this article, for the most part ... except as a footnote maybe). Pupin only in the later years of life reconciled with Tesla, before Tesla's death.
Popov also stated that Tesla had established much of the early radio arts.
And I do know who all three of those researchers (Pupin, Steinmetz, and Popov) in the electrical arts of the time. I had improved their articles, IIRC.
I don't see any reason not to cite them. The article should report the various points of view fairly, as Dicklyon said. Just get the book and the page citations. Some books though have more weight than others, though.
Sincerely, --J. D. Redding 04:02, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Also, as an interesting side note, of the early IEEE Medal of Honor winners, Edwin H. Armstrong and Reginald A. Fessenden supported Tesla's work. Ernst Alexanderson, Lee De Forest (whose patents were bought by the Marconi syndicate), and Michael I. Pupin backed Marconi. FWIW. J. D. Redding 04:33, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
I think that official comments by the best scientists of the time have a relevant weight even if they didn't write book about the argument. Ok, Mr John Stone was a distinct scientist who didn't believe in Marconi as the inventor of the radio. I reported you a completely different point of view of 3 other top scientists in the electrical engineering field. Could you please provide any reference of the same scientists where they officially retract they previous comments about Marconi? Where they say for example, sorry but after 30 years of public vision of all the possible patents regarding the radio we have discovered that Marconi didn't invent anything new and the paternity of the idea should be given to Tesla, Lodge or whoever.....Magnagr (talk) 13:04, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
There are plenty of citations written during Marconi's activities that point out that Marconi's apparatus was not new. Appeals to authority are not acceptable. Marconi was not a bad guy, he just was not first. Sorry. J. D. Redding 11:25, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
This is an encyclopedia, not a philospohical debate. Appeals to authority are the Whole of the Law. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:38, 2 December 2010 (UTC)'
Yes, an encyclopedia. One that should not be full of fallacious items. You confuse a reputable source and a good citations with "Mr. X said it is true so it's true" [and writing an article in that POV], Wtshymanski. If the most honorable and notable gentlemen are included, they should be in footnote only. There are plenty of sources written in the time of Marconi that said that his devices were not 'new'. --J. D. Redding 17:17, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
The fact is that no official comity has spoken out against Marconi about his priority in the invention of Radio. I gave you the most prestigious references, there is the seal of a Nobel Prize given 14 years after his first patent, the outspoken enthusiasm for the Marconi invention from the best scientists of that period, yet nothing move you from position. All my well referenced adds to the articles have been erased or modified or considered as merely personal opinions. I tried to mend an article about the invention of the radio which didn't have a word about Marconi as inventor or scientist ( more than incredible)!!!! yet I'm continuously lectured. Magnagr (talk) 20:35, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
There are references that weigh against Marconi. The article contains some. J. D. Redding 07:48, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

There are people that have pointed out that his device was not new. What he did do new was develop Marconi's law. You removed that! Stop POV editing. Please. --J. D. Redding 21:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Why the article should be written on un-official sources based on some "people" when I'm just reporting the official, never proved wrong history about the invention of the radio, confirmed by the best scientists and by the most authoritative scientific committee in the world (IEEE, Nobel Prize...)? The last resource you are using is the threaten to block my account, such would be really a shameful and unfair action also considering that you are vandalizing the article more than me. Magnagr (talk) 23:16, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

First, the IEEE has stated that Tesla's apparatus contained all the elements of radio (Franklin Lecture). The Nobel Prize is for 'contributions', not 'invention' (Marconi's Law). Magnagr, I didn't do that (block you). Your actions are doing that. J. D. Redding 23:45, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Guglielmo Marconi - The father of long distance radio communication - An engineer's tribute
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/login.jsp?url=http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/iel5/4137114/4137241/04137304.pdf%3Farnumber%3D4137304&authDecision=-203
Long distance radio communication means radio. You have put 10 lines (and your version would not be against Marconi !!) just on the 1943 US supreme court which would have given the priority to Tesla ( urban legend), ignoring my adds about the comments made in favour of Marconi by the same court.Magnagr (talk) 00:35, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
But you fail ... see the qualifier "Long distance". Radio was in existence before then. ... also, I could point you to several books that cite Marconi as the "inventor", but that doesn't mean he did. There are other books and other people that claimed the invention too. Books of the time [secondary sources, additionally] state that others developed the technology earlier than Marconi.
BTW, I think the whole article needs to be expanded. Each individual that contributed needs more information! But deletionist camping tendencies seem to have hold of the article. Sincerely, --J. D. Redding 07:46, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Every historical fact or discovery has pro and against literature, wondering why you just pick up the "against" references when Marconi is the subject of discussion. Most of your references are comments by the authors or weak interpretations of the facts not supported by any official and rigorous source. Tesla and the others were just among the earlier experimenters, nothing more. Only Marconi achieved the radiotransmission "Holy Gral", but nothing of this appears in the article. The article should be rewritten and not only expanded.Magnagr (talk) 01:03, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Again, DO NOT remove the referenced material.
Others before Marconi were among the earlier experimenters and developers of the technology. Marconi was just another in the line. These are facts supported by official and rigorous sources.
BTW, the "Holy Grail" of this article is the invention of radio ... not radio's 'long distance transmission'.
Please expand this article. Write in other articles or start a new one for other topics.
Sincerely, --J. D. Redding 07:47, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
  1. ^ Classical Electromagnetism, Panofsky and Philips pp188-189
  2. ^ Feynman lectures on Physics, Vol 2, 20-7
  3. ^ a b Margaret Cheney (2001). Tesla: Man Out of Time. Simon and Schuster. ISBN 0743215362.
  4. ^ 320 U.S. 1. Marconi Wireless Telegraph co. of America v. United States
  5. ^ Cheney, M., Uth, R., & Glenn, J. (1999). Tesla, Master of Lightning. New York: Barnes & Noble Books. Page 71.
  6. ^ 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.
  7. ^ a b Wireless Telegraph co. of America v. United States.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Invention_of_radio/Archive_2&oldid=789389466"