Talk:Henry Wimshurst

London Gazette
There seem to have been various notices relating to Wimshurst published in the London Gazette, see http://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/1804-01-01;1884-12-31/exact=Henry+Wimshurst/start=1 there's information about a partnership with another ship builder, some of his patents, and it seems that Novelty wasn't a financial success and he was forced to give it to his creditors to settle his debts. David Underdown (talk) 10:28, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I did have a look through the Gazette, but I felt that most of the information there wasn't substantial enough to merit inclusion. The Gazette does seem to indicate that his firm went bankrupt with construction of Novelty, but he was back in business not long thereafter so he must have recovered from this temporary embarrassment. Gatoclass (talk) 12:38, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Image Displayed
I am a bit uneasy that the image shown in the article is really of Henry Wimshurst. The original photo is in the London Science Museum's collection and they say it is captioned "Henry Wimshurst". However, it is not at all like an engraving of Henry that is included as part of a magazine article written I guess around 1880. The Museum also says the photo would have been taken between 1854 and 1866. However, during these dates Henry's age would have been between 50 & 62, and the man in the photo looks rather younger than this. My theory is that the photo could well have been of Henry's son James. The model on the table is certainly of the stern of the Archimedes, but James Wimshurst was also associated with the ship as he was in business at Ratcliff Cross Dock (where Henry had built the ship) from 1862 to 1866 (source The Times 22 Feb 1866). Furthermore, the photo shows a likeness to later photos of James that are held by the Institution of Electrical Engineers. User: johnp 21:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pettifer (talk • contribs)


 * It looks nothing like James to me. Also, the person in this photo could easily be in his late forties or early fifties. If it was James, he would have been only between 22 and 34 at the time this photo was taken, and the person in this photo looks to be at least in his forties.
 * Also, one would expect an engraving of Henry done in 1880 to look quite different, as Henry would have been in his 70s by then. Gatoclass (talk) 06:31, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I note that Gatoclass does not share my concern, but still think it would be helpful to have an opinion about the subject's age from an expert on the period. johnp 15:35, 12 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pettifer (talk • contribs)


 * The guy in that photo is not in his 20s or 30s, he's in his 40s or 50s - look at the receding hair and gray whiskers. But in any case it's immaterial, as the source, which is the British Science Library, clearly states it is a photo of Henry Wimshurst posing in front of a model of Archimedes. Gatoclass (talk) 06:03, 23 June 2011 (UTC)