Talk:Heliograph

Why 1990s?
Ummm. Why 1990s? From Afghanistan: 'the Soviet Union intervened on 24 December 1979. Faced with mounting international pressure and losses of approximately 15,000 Soviet soldiers as a result of mujahideen opposition trained by the United States, Pakistan, and other foreign governments, the Soviets withdrew ten years later in 1989. For more details see Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan.' I will correct the entry to 1980s. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 13:37, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Recording sunshine
I was researching sunshine recorders and found that http://amsglossary.allenpress.com/glossary/search?id=heliograph1 says a heliograph and blueprint paper can be used to record sun. Anybody got any idea how this works?
 * sorry forgot to sign it CambridgeBayWeather 18:47, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Much too late, but you wanted sunshine recorders. -- Securiger 23:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Earlier uses
According to The Crusades: Islamic Perspectives, heliograph may have been in use during the Crusades (p. 469). The Jade Knight 06:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

405 BC No Reference
The article says that Greeks signalled with shields with mirrors in 405 BC. No reference is given. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Geneven (talk • contribs) 04:24, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Not only morse code
I recall something like a heliograph being used for transmittins sound (i.e. speech) as well. Then it work with the sound inducing ocilations in a thin reflective plate. I don't think it ever made more than a prototype, but it may be interesting to note. // Liftarn 06:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You are probably thinking of the Alexander Graham Bell's photophone (1880) Macchess (talk) 06:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Merge
I propose that this page be merged into Heliotrope (instrument). As stated in Heliography, both seem to be the same instrument; but "heliograph" is not the most convenient name for this instrument. We can deduce from the greek root -graphy, which originally meant "to write", and therefore is more adequate for the photography usage referred in Heliography (or at best, to refer to sunshine recorders). Heliotrope, instead, besides being the original name of the instrument, has the advantage that it's root comes from comes from the Greek τροπή (tropē), "a turn, a change", as we can read in Trope (linguistics). This makes more sense as the name of the instrument. Quoting Heliotrope (instrument), "It is a fitting name for an instrument which can be turned to reflect the sun toward a given point."

Note that the fact that the two words are used to refer to instruments for slightly different purposes doesn't mean they are the same instrument being given different uses. For all this, I am willing to merge both articles under the name I consider more appropriate, Heliotrope. But evidently I'd first like to hear the oppinion of the community on this. If noone opposes in a while, I'll perform the merge. --Waldir talk 13:41, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * "Heliograph" should not be merged into Heliotrope (instrument) (nor Heliostat, for that matter). "Heliotrope" is not the dominant term for this sort of instrument - "Heliograph" is. To support my assertion: in the dictionary I use as my guide to common usage (Merriam-Webster's 11th Ed. Collegiate dictionary(2003)), none of the three definitions provided for "Heliotrope" describe any instrument, and the entry for "Heliograph" has one and only one definition: "an apparatus for telegraphing by means of the sun's rays flashed from a mirror". Presumably "Heliograph" won partly because of the felicitous functional resemblance to the telegraph (not photograph), and partly because the term "heliotrope" was appropriated to describe sunflowers when tropism became popular in botany ("heliotropes" are plants that turn to face the sun). In the heyday of the heliograph, the telegraph was the primary means of light-speed long distance communication (and similarly used Morse Code)), so the heliograph:telegraph relationship would have been compelling. The dominance of "heliograph" to describe these instruments is also my personal experience, both in the written literature and on the web. Note the many web sites cited in the article, which have extensive photographs, literature, and other material under the term "heliograph". For an example from popular literature, see Kipling's . It is true that "heliotrope" is occasionally used to describe sun-signalling instruments, but readers who run across a description of a sun-signalling instrument and look to Wikipedia for more are far, far more likely to be searching for "heliograph". Macchess (talk) 22:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't support a merger and I agree with the comments of Macchess. I have dealt extensively with early communications and have only known these instruments under the name "heliograph". If fact, until reading this proposal for merger I had never heard the name "heliotrope" so I don't imagine many people would search for these devices under that name. J Costello (talk) 01:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Fair enough - you've convinced me :) Should I invert the merge tags, then? That is, suggest heliotrope (instrument) to be merged into this article? --Waldir talk 11:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I propose that the merge tags simply be removed. I think each instrument merits its own article. The heliograph is a communications instrument, and the heliotrope a surveying instrument, and while the heliotrope inspired the heliograph, the two then coexisted for over a century thereafter. The two articles cross-reference each other fairly appropriately now ( per the references I found and cited, Mance, the inventor of the British heliograph, was inspired by the surveying heliotropes he encountered in the survey of India). The heliotrope has a long and fruitful history. For example, it seems that the US army military standard: ARMY MIL-H-20194E: HELIOTROPE, SURVEYING, BOX-TYPE, WITH CASE, was not withdrawn until 1995. . There's a bit more recent detail here:. For a nice history of the heliotrope, see: . By the way, as a result of my investigations, I've added quite a few references and other tidbits to the Heliograph article. Macchess (talk) 04:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You have done an impressive job! I'll remove the merge tags then. --Waldir talk 12:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Remove Tiberius Reference: Traced to Unverified Speculation by John A. Kingman in 1919
For some time now, the Heliograph article has had the unreferenced account: "In about 35 AD, the Roman emperor Tiberius, by then very unpopular, ruled his vast empire from a villa on the Isle of Capri. It is thought that he sent coded orders daily by heliograph to the mainland, eight miles away." It was recently pointed out that this lacked a reference, so I looked into it.

It seems that the thought that Tiberius used mirror signaling is traceable merely to speculation by John A. Kingman in the 1919 article below, despite Kingman's specific admission: "there are no references in ancient writings to the use of signaling by mirrors".

After reading Kingman's article through, it hardly seems to meet the Wikipedia standard that: "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable", so I intend to strike that unreferenced sentence.

John A. Kingman's 1919 article: "The Isle of Capri: An Imperial Residence and Probable Wireless Station of Ancient Rome" ( Note the qualifier: "Probable") appeared in: The National Geographic magazine, Volume 35, No. 3, Washington, September, 1919, which those interested can read here:

http://books.google.com/books?id=MXJIAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA213

Starting on page 220, Kingman lays out his thesis that the reference that Tacitus makes to Tiberius signaling from Capri:"Meanwhile he [Tiberius] was upon the watch from the summit of a lofty cliff for the signals which he had ordered to be made if anything occurred, lest the messengers should be tardy. " was signaling by mirrors.

Since the signals could have just as easily been the type of well-documented long distance beacon signals that Kingman specifically admits were used by the Greeks a century and a half earlier, Kingman's isolated speculation, while an interesting fantasy, does not seem to rise to the level of verifiable encylopedic content.

Kingman specifically admits (page 221, 3rd paragraph): "there are no references in ancient writings to the use of signaling by mirrors", but argues that: "Although there are no references in ancient writings to the use of signaling by mirrors, such a simple and effective method surely must have been employed."

Surely? This seems remarkably weak to me - by the same argument, signaling by mirrors "must" have been used from the Renaissance onwards - why must we assume the Romans more astute than the scientists of the Renaissance?

Kingman continues:

"If the Greeks could invent such a theory of communication, it would seem likely that the Romans, a century and a half later, could have perfected its practice by using mirrors" Likely?

"I hazard the theory of mirrors because of its simplicity and convincing character. Signaling by beacon seems too primitive for the wonderful civilization of the Empire." Hazard?

"A suggested line of stations with no range more than 44 miles long is submitted to those of a speculative turn of mind. Rome to Monte Cavo, in the Alban Mountains, 18 miles; thence to Monte Circeo, 39 miles; thence to Monte Massico. 44 miles; thence to Capri, 44 miles." Suggested?

After "Probable", "Surely", "Likely", "Hazard", "suggested" and "no references", this seems to be simply unverified speculation - what we would call these days an "urban myth". I intend to remove it. Macchess (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:12, 19 May 2010 (UTC).

File:Turkish heliograph at Huj2.jpg to appear as POTD soon
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Turkish heliograph at Huj2.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on June 21, 2011. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2011-06-21. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks!  howcheng  {chat} 18:32, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Robert Hooke's 1684 telecommunications method was a semaphore, not a heliograph
The contribution: "Robert Hooke invented a rudimentary heliograph in 1684." was added to the History section of this article today, but Dr. Hooke's distance signaling method of 1684 was not a heliograph system -- it did not use the reflection of sun off of mirrors.

Hooke's 1684 method used large wooden letters by day ([1], page 149, Figure 2) and patterns of light by night ([1], page 150).

Hooke's system was thus a semaphore system rather than a heliograph, and has been properly credited as such in the history section of the Semaphore line article in Wikipedia.

I have read the entirety of Hooke's original presentation of May 21, 1684 [1], and see no mention nor discussion of mirrors. If I simply overlooked the relevant text, please point me to it. Macchess (talk) 01:47, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

[1] "Dr. Hook's Discourse to the Royal Society, May 21, 1684, showing        a way how to communicate on's Mind at great Distances" in         Philosophical experiments and observations of the late eminent Dr. Robert Hooke, S.R.S. and Geom. Prof. Gresh., and other eminent virtuoso's in his time, William Derham, 1726, pages 142-150. http://books.google.com/books?id=ZWhYAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA142&dq=hook


 * Per discussion with the editor that added the Hooke sentence, the source that cited Hooke as the inventor of the heliograph did not provide any support for the assertion, and Hooke's 1684 contribution is described in other texts as a semaphore (below). So, with that editor's permission, I'm removing the Hooke sentence for now - if other evidence comes up, we can revisit the matter. Macchess (talk) 07:06, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

[1] "Communications: An International History of the Formative Years" Volume 32 of History of Technology Series, Author	R. W. Burns, 2004 http://books.google.com/books?id=7eUUy8-VvwoC&pg=PA29&dq=hooke+1684+semaphore [2] "Military Communications: From Ancient Times to the 21st Century" By Christopher H. Sterling, 2008, page 377, bottom of column 1 http://books.google.com/books?id=RBC2nY1rp5MC&pg=PA377&lpg=PA377&dq=hooke+semaphore+1684 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Macchess (talk • contribs) 06:54, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Conflict with Camberley Obelisk page
According to above page, recorded use of heliograph occurred in 1778. Either the history here is incomplete, or ....? Anybody any clues?RayTayMiht (talk) 11:52, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Heliograph. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://myweb.cableone.net/kd7aoi/spacehg.htm
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://solarbeacon.org/?

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 00:24, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Semaphore
Regarding your edit summary in this edit, that another article has a similar problem does not strike me as a valid reason to revert. All these insertions of semaphore, and the semaphore article itself in its present form, are the work of a single editor with a POV that can't really be backed up by sources. There was a difficult RFC at Talk:Optical telegraph needed to get the claim removed from that article. Numerous reliable sources were put forward in that discussion which supported removal. I agree the semaphore article is problematic in several ways (it should probably be deleted in my opinion) but its existence is not an excuse for usourced, contested claims being allowed to stand in this article. On Wikipedia, every article stands or falls on its own merits, not on the merits of any other article. SpinningSpark 16:36, 8 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the context, I've reverted myself now. fgnievinski (talk) 17:15, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I wholeheartedly agree with SpinningSpark - the semaphore article in its current form is horribly misleading - "semaphore" is a narrow subcategory of visual signaling (visual signalling in British English), which does not include the heliograph. The editor that created the current semaphore article has the POV that "semaphore" covers the entire category of visual signaling.
 * The Oxford Languages dictionary definition of "semaphore" is fairly accurate: "semaphore: a system of sending messages by holding the arms or two flags or poles in certain positions according to an alphabetic code"[1]
 * That definition neatly covers flag semaphore and the (obsolete) naval mechanical semaphore. That definition may need to be slightly expanded to cover railway semaphore signals and early pole-based optical telegraphs, whose codes were non-alphabetic.
 * Some possibilities for the current semaphore article would be to:
 * [A] change the title of that article to something like Visual Signaling/Signalling that really does convey the meaning the semaphore editor thinks "semaphore" does, and do the same in all the references that editor scattered through Wikipedia). This seems like a robust solution, once in place - it would be a subset of optical communication, restricted to optical communication where the receiver is the human (or possibly, animate) eye.
 * [B] to clarify that the meaning of "semaphore" is restricted to signaling by moving arms (mechanical or human), possibly with lights on them, move anything useful in the "Fire", "lights", "Sunlight" and "Hydraulic" subsections to their appropriate article, delete those subsections, and weed out the other inappropriate references to "semaphore" that have been broadcast through Wikipedia.
 * [C] Both of the above (two articles).
 * I fear such solutions would require a significant time commitment, however, and I'm behind on my work-related tasks.
 * [1] https://web.archive.org/web/20230208200356/https://www.google.com/web/20230208200356/https://www.google.com/search?&q=definition+of+semaphore
 * Macchess (talk) 20:35, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the support Macchess. In my opinion, it would be better if this article did not exist and flag semaphore (the primary meaning) was moved back to this title.  With such a broad definition of semaphore the article is virtually covering the same ground as optical telegraph, just not so well.  The disambiguation page at semaphore (disambiguation) is all we really need.  However, it was such an exhausting struggle to fight off this nonsense in the optical telegraph article that I chose not to take that on.  It was quite clear at the time that any attempt to do so would be fought tooth and nail by the creator and such a subtle issue is difficult to get across to the general participators at AFD. SpinningSpark 16:39, 9 February 2023 (UTC)