Talk:Radio/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Question on multiple frequencies

Is it possible to broadcast over multiple frequencies at once? Or possibly cycle through a lot of frequencies quickly? SidTheWicked 14:45, 1 Dec 2005 (UTC)

It depends. Its routine for many transmitters to send the same program out at the same time - radio and TV broadcast networks do this. Check out spread spectrum for different techniques to use many frequencies from a single transmitter - this is not used for broadcasting but is used for privacy and security of communications, in military and cordless phones, for example. --Wtshymanski 21:50, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Television

1948 for television? Mechanical television existed in the '30s and used radio signals. Wake 04:45, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

DARPA

Can somebody clarify " In 1994, the U.S. Army and DARPA launched an aggressive, successful project to construct a software radio that could become a different radio on the fly by changing software.", please? Andy Mabbett 17:47, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

Current and voltage

I'm troubled by "When a radio wave passes a wire, it induces a moving electric charge (voltage)...". As I recall, a moving electric charge is in fact a current, while a separation of charge is a voltage. Wikipedia seems to back me up on this, but I'm too long out of my college E&M course to recall which is actually responsible for creating the received radio signal. Either the word "current" needs to replace "voltage" or "moving electric charge" needs to be replaced with "creating a separation in charge" - depending on which is actually responsible. --ABQCat 05:15, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Depends on the wire. A loop antenna (a closed loop of wire) gets a current induced in it by the magnetic field. A dipole antenna (a broken loop of wire) gets an emf (or voltage) induced in it by the electric field. -- Heron 13:13, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Wardenclyffe

Another question. Tesla is the subject of some pretty wacky claims and bad science, and this claim: "Wardenclyffe in operation may have allowed secure multichannel transceiving of information and may have allowed universal navigation, time synchronization, and a global location system." seems to be on that level, to me. There's no way (in my mind) that a single tower would have provided a global location system. Even if it propegated world-wide, such a system would only be able to provide on thing - bearing to the radio signal source. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the hype and bad science that people associated with Tesla propegate needs to be checked and we need to make sure this isn't that. --ABQCat 05:34, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Although I agree with you about the general hype, and the need to protect Wikipedia from Tesla's wackier supporters, I think that this particular claim was based on real physics, but not, unfortunately, on real economics. He described the function of his planned World System of towers in "The Future of the Wireless Art", Wireless Telegraphy and Telephony, 1908, pg. 67-71. (quoted here). It might have worked if he had not run out of money after the construction of the first tower. -- Heron 13:13, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Two things:

1. Tesla and economics do not mix. Tesla once tried to give free power to everyone on the planet using the earth as a conductor. He got the physics to work, but Mr. J.P. Morgan (I think it was him, not going to look it up) wouldn't pay for it.

2. You can get a HAM radio to do that out of your back yard in the right conditions. It is possible to bounce radio waves off clouds and (I believe) thermal layers in the atmosphere. Besides, Tesla did some things that we still don't understand. He once got a stage that he was lecturing on to emit light, with no visible light source. The light was apparently generated from the air itself. The only known props are two solid metal plates, and electrical engineers are still scratching their heads.--Ostermana 06:06, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Transistor Radio Birthday

Regency TR-1 heise newsticker about the birthday (in german) --Deelkar 17:11, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

First news, first daily scheduled broadcasts: San Jose Calif, 1909-1917

The world's first radio news program was broadcast August 31, 1920 by station 8MK in Detroit, Michigan. The world's first regular wireless broadcasts for entertainment commenced in 1922 from the Marconi Research Centre at Writtle near Chelmsford, England.

I believe Charles David Herrold (1875-1948) was on the air on a regular schedule from 1909 to 1917 in San Jose, California; and that his programming included music, news, and advertising (I think some of the advertisers may have been cinemas). Originally without a designation other than "San Jose calling", I have an idea he used a Poulsen arc for AM somewhere in the longwave spectrum. I think it may have been VLF. This page says that the audience consisted of "amateurs" rather than "ordinary citizens" but I doubt that also; I suspect one can find advertisements in old periodicals for receivers he sold. This article in Radio World indicates that "His students served as its DJs and newsreaders". It's my understanding the military shut down nearly all nonmilitary broadcasting in 1917 for a few years. I think the station was licensed as KQW AM in 1921. A public television station broadcast a special about it a few years ago. A museum in San Jose exhibits some of his equipment.

I suspect 8MK may have been the first licensed broadcaster. I don't know what "first" Marconi at Writtle can claim. Marconi has quite a number of "firsts" as it is. --Munge 07:29, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC) modified 10 March 2005

If don´t speak english doesn´t matter -

August 27 of 1920 Radio Argentina begins regularly scheduled transmissions from the Teatro Coliseo in Buenos Aires. This is the first regularly scheduled transmission. The first radio show, Your information is incorrect, please, the next time, get a world enciclopedia, not only US and his europe tail. It s very disappointing findout this kind of mistakes in wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MonstaPro (talk • contribs) 01:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC).

What is your source? MonstaPro 01:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Tesla's 1893 demonstration

In 1893 in St. Louis, Missouri, Tesla made the first public demonstration of radio communication. Addressing the Franklin Institute in Philadelphia and the National Electric Light Association, he described and demonstrated in detail the principles of radio communication. The apparatus that he used contained all the elements that were incorporated into radio systems before the development of the vacuum tube. He initially used magnetic receivers [1] (http://www.teslasociety.com/teslarec.pdf), unlike the coherers used by Marconi and other early experimenters.

St Louis or Philadelphia? I'm confused. What exactly did he demonstrate that was new that Hertz hadn't already demonstrated? Also, there seems to be some confusion about the lecture that Tesla gave in 1893. In this article (and elsewhere) it states that Tesla demonstrated his apparatus in 1893. However there are other sites that state that Tesla only gave a lecture describing the principles of his system of transmission. He was not able to give a demonstration until 1895. Jooler 12:13, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have a book on Tesla (Tesla - Man out of Time, Margaret Cheney, ISBN 0-7432-1536-2) that reads: "He moved scientific history forward again in the spring of 1893 when, addressing the Franklin Institute in Philidelphia and the National Electric Light Association at St. Louis, he described in detail the principles of radio broadcasting. At St. Louis he made the first public demonstration ever of radio communication, although Marconi is generally credited with having achieved this feat in 1895"

?? [unexplained link]

What is this [1] even supposed to be? It just sits there with no caption a cryptic file name and no explanation of what it is. Not helpful.--Deglr6328 16:35, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Bias against Marconi?

I believe this entry is in part biased against Marconi. See the difference:

In 1896 Marconi was awarded what is sometimes recognised as the world's first patent for radio ... The same year in the U.S., some key developments in radio's early history were created and patented by Tesla. The U.S. Patent Office reversed its decision in 1904, awarding Marconi a patent for the invention of radio, possibly influenced by Marconi's financial backers ... Some believe this was made for financial reasons, allowing the U.S. government to avoid having to pay the royalties that were being claimed by Tesla for use of his patents.

However, Tesla's patent was reinstated in 1943 by the Supreme Court. This decision was based on the fact that prior art existed before the establishment of Marconi's patent. Some believe the decision was also made for financial reasons...

I agree with this statement. Article does not state the following: - Marconi work for Tesla in his labaratory where he had full access to Tesla's research. - Article missinforms reader indicating Tesla's work has local caracter and Marcony was working independenty in Italy. - Marconi who was active Italian fashist had full support of Italy Fashist goverment, where Tesla never had it from his own

Also what is the relavance of Albert Einstein to this article?

I tryed to change the article to be more acurate - it is not perfect in English language, but at lease it contains truth! If itention of Wikipedia is colaboration than cersorship steps taken by Hertz1888 are not acceptable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aristokrata (talk • contribs) 07:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

First man to send voice transmitions over radio

The first man to send voice over radio was a Slovak priest in Wilkes Barre Pennsylvania Dudtz 22:55, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Pulse Code Modulation PCM

From the line:

"Q1: Who invented 'wireless transmission of data using the entire frequency spectrum' (spark-gap radio)?"

The spark-gap was used to stimulate a Tesla coil. Tesla coils do not opperate over the entire spectrum. Each and every one must be made for a fairly narrow frequency range.

It should read, "Q1: Who invented 'wireless transmission of data using one or more specific carrier frequencys, and cycled them on and off' (spark-gap radio)(Very similar to PCM.)?"

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.72.244.204 (talk) 04:17, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

unsourced?

Having the tag is unnecessary ... and the references are in the articles linked to (this one being a "top" lvl article to many sub-articles). Unless there is a good reason to have it ... it shouldn't be there. JDR 16:04, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

No mention of Tesla's "invention of radio" in the source

I have rewritten the following excerpt concerning Tesla's "invention of radio communication":

In 1893 in St. Louis, Missouri, Tesla made the first public demonstration of radio communication. Addressing the Franklin Institute in Philadelphia and the National Electric Light Association, he described and demonstrated in detail the principles of radio communication. [2]

Read the article in the cited source and compare it to the excerpt:"radio communication" is not even mentioned there, all stuff there deals with the electricity. Below that excerpt a link to another source is provided [3], but it deals with device built in 1899.

The same can be applied to Jagdish Chandra Bose, an excerpt about whom I've rewritten too. Cmapm 01:41, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

In the book, "Tesla - Man out of Time" by Margaret Cheney, ISBN 0-7432-1536-2, on pages 95 and 96 is the quote

"[Tesla] moved scientific history forward again in spring of 1893 when, adressing the Franklin Institute in Philidelphia and the National Electric Light Association at St. Louis, he described in detail the principles of radio broadcasting.

At St. Louis he made the first public demonstration ever of radio communication, although marconi is generally credited with having achieved this feat in 1895"

--Ostermana 06:15, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, you cited an American POV (a book by the U.S. author, published in the U.S). But I'll not cite any Russian sources, although almost all of them credit Popov as inventor of radio. I'll cite Encarta 2006 (Britannica says almost the same):

Aleksandr Stepanovich Popov (1859-1906), Russian engineer who independently invented a type of radio receiver. In 1895 Popov constructed wireless apparatus quite independently of Marconi, using a high vertical aerial and a coherer detector. However, Popov's equipment was designed for recording “atmospherics” (natural radio emissions) and was used as a detector of distant electrical storms, while Marconi's was specifically for wireless communication. Nevertheless, ever since then Italy and Russia have claimed their nationals as the inventor of radio.

No mention of Tesla there. And as I said IEEE site doesn't mention Tesla's invention of radio too. Cmapm 14:23, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

You said Popov first started playing with functional radios in 1895? Read this: http://www.pbs.org/tesla/ll/ll_hifreq.html and this http://www.pbs.org/tesla/ll/ll_whoradio.html I would also like to mention that your source does not say that Popov invented radio, just that he built one without outside assistance. It actually implies that Marconi beat Popov to it. Since Marconi "invented" radio using 17 of Tesla's patants (according to Tesla, anyway), this puts Tesla in first. I believe the cause of Tesla's notable absence from nearly all major sources is because no one has heard of him. I once, just for kicks, spent an hour and a half asking random people at my high school how many of them had heard of Nikola Tesla. of about 500 high schoolers asked, 3 knew who he was. 2 of the 3 were friends I had previously introduced to Tesla's work myself. Tesla has largely been forgotten by the general populace, yet he died with more than 700 patents to his name. He made the Hoover Dam work, every piece of electrical equipment origionally present had Nikola Tesla somewhere on the patent.--end rant--Ostermana 21:23, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I see one Prof. Hughes is not mentioned either (see "Some Feedback"). MonstaPro 01:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Tesla first publicly demonstrated what he called "wireless" in 1893, while marconi did so in 1895. Popov is credited here on wikipedia as doing so in 1896, though I don't know how accurate that one is. The US supreme court reversed a previous ruling so that Tesla is nationally credited with discovery. I've updated the History in Brief section to match. --Ostermana 06:09, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

If you don't believe Wikipedia, then possibly you should believe to the IEEE:

On 7 May 1895, A. S. Popov demonstrated the possibility of transmitting and receiving short, continuous signals over a distance up to 64 meters by means of electromagnetic waves with the help of a special portable device responding to electrical oscillation which was a significant contribution to the development of wireless communication. [4] Cmapm 14:23, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

According to PBS, in early 1895 Tesla was broacasting 50 miles (80.47 Km) or 125 times as far. The link is in my post in the previous section. Also, the article makes no mention of Popov inventing the radio, just that he developed one that worked.

According to PBS: By early 1895, Tesla was ready to transmit a signal 50 miles to West Point, New York... But... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.176.68.152 (talk) 12:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC).

Vital info missing!

WHY IS IT CALLED RADIO???

There isn't even a clue as to where did the name come from! Of course it might have something to do with radio frequency, but from where did that name come?? Don't you think it's important to put the reason this article is called Radio? (And the reason everyone all around the world calls the invention the very same way?) This is a common mistake around Wikipedia articles, as well as trying to explain everything except the vitals. Kreachure 16:56, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

OH MY GOODNESS!!! That's the quickest response I've ever seen around here! An entire subsection a few hours after I commented! Now this is the type of attitude that makes me feel proud of Wikipedia! Kudos to you, silent but effective Wikipedians!!! (I'm looking your way, GABaker and Heron!)

Radio founders

Well we had a link to everyone but Nikola Tesla. So I added one, you also had his name spelled wrong so I corrected that as well. Whispering 03:26, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Digital telecommnication

can u solve my problem

how information can be added on radio signal? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.27.220.135 (talk • contribs) .

Look at modulation. Imroy 07:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Several technical errors in this article!!

I've noticed well over a dozen serious errors in this article. I will submit my edits over the next few days. thanks for your patience.

---

Could you please list them so we can know what the rest of us have missed? cmacd 16:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Wholesale reversion

User:204.56.7.1 should know by now that wholesale reversion is a violation of Wikipedia principles. You need to collaborate with your peers to create an article. Please abide by Etiquette and discuss changes you wish to implement. "Q & A" formats are more appropriate for FAQs than encyclopedia articles. --Blainster 19:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Removal of information; Check to put back in

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Radio&diff=61235355&oldid=61005933

This needs a review. 134.193.168.244 23:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

• If the history of radio is at Radio#History of radio and also at History of radio, some people will put new matter in one, and some will put new matter in the other, and the two will get different and out of step with each other, and readers will have to look in two places for information, until someone has to merge them. The same happened with Berlin#History of Berlin and History of Berlin, until they were merged. As I set Radio#History of radio, Radio was modern information only, not cluttered with old history, and getting the history on another window needs only a mouse right click and a mouse left click: that is what Wikipedia-type blue links are for. I did not remove the information, I merged it into History of radio.

We will now see if Radio#Brief history stays brief and does not accumulate matter which is not also put in History of radio, thus again forcing readers to read both to find all the history information. Anthony Appleyard 06:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

External Link - OnTheRadio.Net

ontheradio.net claims to have a database of commercials that played on radio stations, but I haven't found any commercials-related information on their site. I think they tried to do it, but the business model failed. Nor do they have play lists. As such the site is kind of junky, and it might be worth deleting the link.

"On The Radio" never seems to work

The website ontheradio.net is very good at gfetting to the top of Google for obscure radio stations, but they don't seem to have anything but ads. If anybody can find a spot where they are relevant, it would be worth posting. mikedow —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikedow (talk • contribs) 15:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Culled external links: April - May 2007 Rationale

I believe point 13 Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided is pretty clear. When the Wikipedia reader follows the external link, s/he should transition to another article that could conceivably serve as a web reference or be included in the article itself. In light of that, a link to a 'directory of all the <fill in the blank> radio stations in the <fill in the blank> does not qualify: there is no supporting article. The one directory that Wikipedia supports is the DMOZ project, which is where other directories should be put. I have left a link to that meta-directory in the external links section.

I've culled the external link section of such directories and placed them here to illustrate the class. If you take issue with me, please don't put them back w/o discussing here first. Thank you — Gosgood 17:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• The 1950s-2000s Week-By-Week - Includes detailed information on pop radio through the decades. Follows the AM top-40 wars, FM stereo Rock, syndication, FM top-40, DJ's and trends.
• Radio stations in the world
• Radio Station World
• Radio de Trujillo
• Cultural Radio Stations in Mexico
• Jazz Radio stations worldwide
• Radio Locator: Find a radio station in your area

Edits

Microwaves are not classed as radio waves, as they're produced by a magnetron, which utilizes a resonant cavity - the microwaves exit in coherent form. Radio, on the other hand, creates an oscillating charge by means of resonant circuits, and then transmits that charge to the antenna for transmission. Mugaliens 16:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

That turns out not to be the case. It's the same physics from VLF up to heat waves and beyond. --Wtshymanski 17:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

New Graphic Required

This needs a new graphic, as the current one wrongly lumps microwaves and radio waves together. Two good sources of appropriate graphics, if permission can be obtained, are:

http://praxis.pha.jhu.edu/pictures/emspec.gif

http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/light/spectrum.html Mugaliens 16:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The graphic is correct: Microwaves are simply short-wavelength Radio Waves. Both are a form of Electromagnetic Radiation, along with Light, Heat, X-Rays, etc. Gutta Percha 08:05, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Some Feedback:

(1) The text is quite confusing in mixing terms such as "RF", "Radio Waves", "Microwaves", etc.

It needs to be plainly stated that all of these arbitrary terms fall under the broad heading of "Electromagnetic Radiation". The main point should be that RF, Microwave, Radio, Light, X-rays, etc are all the same thing, differing only in frequency.

(2) A discussion of "Who Invented Radio" is fairly meaningless without mentioning Maxwell and Hertz. Maxwell developed the theory behind Electromagnetism and Hertz developed the first practical demonstrations of the theory. All else follows from these two great men.

There is one rather sad exception: Prof. D. E. Hughes developed a working radio in 1879, many years before Marconi and the rest. He demonstrated his prototype to Preece, Crookes and others, who unfortunately declared his success to be due to "mere Induction". Prof Hughes was discouraged and abandoned any further work on his system:

ref: A history of Wireless Telegraphy by J. J. Fahie 1899

(3) "Early radios ran the entire power of the transmitter through a carbon microphone" No. They ran the antenna current through the Carbon Mic.

(4) "aircraft used commercial AM radio stations for navigation" Yes, but in Europe only. In most parts of the world, aircraft used Non Direction Beacons (NDBs) to navigate by. Where NDBs were not available, then normal B/C stations were used.

(5) "1930s, single sideband and frequency modulation were invented by amateur radio operators" These modes were certainly developed further by Amateurs, but they were not invented by amateurs.

(6) "AM broadcast radio sends music and voice in the Medium Frequency radio spectrum". In Europe there is also the much older Long Wave B/C Band (140 to 400 kHz).

(7) "In some countries, FM radios automatically retune themselves to the same channel in a different district by using sub-bands." This is meaningless. It should read, "In some countries the digital station identification is used to automatically re-tune mobile radios when they move out of range of the original station".

(8) "Marine voice radios can use AM in the shortwave High Frequency" No. They use Single Side Band (SSB).

(9) "..... marine radiolocation beacons, which share a range of frequencies just above AM radio with amateur radio operators."

No. NDB's are below the M/W broadcast band. Perhaps the author meant S/W beacons. Whatever, they don't share frequencies with Radio Amateurs.

That will do for now. Gutta Percha 09:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I just quickly reviewed this article, and I was about to say something similar to point 1. I would suggest that radio waves (as a type of electromagnetic radiation) be in a completely separate article from the technology of radio (a medium for information and entertainment). As for 2-9, someone knowledgable should review the above and leave comments here. Walkerma 03:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

from (1) - the article titled Radio Frequency appears to extrapolate this with increased cojency! MonstaPro 01:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

from (2) - I would like to set a precedent over this discussion page; that is "who invented radio" or other such arguments to be moved to the Invention of radio article. The title of the relevant section in this article starts with the word "Brief" after all! MonstaPro 04:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

from (5) - there are two people directly listed earlier in the article! Suggest an imminent correction! MonstaPro 01:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Aviation Radio History

I question the following statement.

---

Aviation voice radios use VHF AM. AM is used so that multiple stations on the same channel can be received. (Use of FM would result in stronger stations blocking out reception of weaker stations due to FM's capture effect). Aircraft fly high enough that their transmitters can be received hundreds of miles (kilometres) away, even though they are using VHF.

---

I have never come across any reliable information supporting this often repeated claim. All information I can find indicates that Aviation Radio has remained on AM principally due to historical reasons and the sheer magnitude of any attempt to convert to a new format.

---

Both the Historical and the Technical explanations are clearly true.

With FM, "Capture effect" makes the strongest signal clearer at the cost of masking any weaker signals. AM however allows multiple signals to be heard at once. AM also resolves much weaker signals than FM. Gutta Percha 00:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

---

The original text IMPLIES that AM was intentionally selected for its lack of capture effect, or that a conscious decision was made to stay with AM for this reason. I have found no information that either of those cases are true. This makes the wording of the section incorrect and misleading.

radio

I think that you people should tell more about radios like the hip-hop the one that plays that music because other than that im gonna make an F on my project for technology. Any suggestions.

hit the Library. MonstaPro 01:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Messy Introduction Paragraphs

The beginning of the article is very messy. The Spectrum should be moved into a subheading. Anything that would get rid of the initial clutter. --Davidkazuhiro 13:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the following paragraph from the intro, and posted it here as I don't see any good place to put it...also, I question if it's really the right tone:

By addressing radio in terms of what Lyotard (1997:47) calls "stream[s] of cultural capital", scholars can explore the social construction and importance of wireless telegraphy. Transmitting messages and information without wires was a major technological achievement, yet one dwarfed by comparison to the social and cultural implications of coming to terms with the novel electromagnetic environment. Indeed, when it first appeared on the social horizon, radio immediately became a significant site of cultural production and contestation. Rather than a type of cultural phenomenon, radio waves continue to function as a “zone of cultural debate” (Appadurai 1996:5).Pace Adorno and the Frankfurt School’s view of radio as isolating people by encouraging atomized listening, radio, particularly in rural, "isolated" regions sustains imagined--albeit fractal, if not fragmented--communities.

Perhaps a section on Marxist analysis of radio is in order? But somehow I don't think the reader who looks up 'radio' is expecting a treatise about the Frankfurt School in the introductory section. Ethan Mitchell 14:06, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Removed twice-mentioned link

Just before (level 3) Audio there was a second to the history of radio. MonstaPro 01:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Invention

It says: "In 1878, David E. Hughes transmitted Morse code by radio at and below the Super low frequency range"

This is just plain silly. There is no evidence for Huges using SLF. He was sending broad-band spark signals which probably peaked in the usual LF/MF range, but which also would have had components at VHF/UHF, etc.

It should read "In 1878, David E. Hughes transmitted Morse code by radio using a clockwork keyed transmitter. He achieved a range of 300 Metres or so"

Gutta Percha 09:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

No mention of the first brodcast by a commercially licensed radio station: KDKA

From their site...

November 2, 1920 The world's first broadcast by a commercially licensed radio station: The Harding-Cox Presidential Election Returns. Announcer Leo Rosenberg delivered the results starting at 6:00pm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbittner (talk • contribs) 14:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Alleged Einstein quote

I first removed this quote because it lacked citation, it seemed to be pretty dubious as a noted scientist's explanation of radio transmission, and Einstein and Churchill (and perhaps a few others) are reputed to have said a lot more than they ever actually said. It was subsequently re-added with a citation to a personal webpage that prominenty disclaimed any guarantee of authenticity. The re-poster apparently noticed this and later withdrew the source and tagged it as needing citation.

The "citation needed" tag's being used in this way is patently abusive. "Citation needed" is never meant to forestall the removal of inaccurate information. Instead it serves a housekeeping function: it indicates those noncontroversial statements of fact that, pursuant to wikipedia policy, require citation despite their general plausibility and acceptance. Once a statement is challenged, it falls to those who would include it in the article to substantiate their claims with an actual citation. To hold otherwise would require editors favoring deletion to prove the negative -- those statements which Einstein never said. Accordingly, unless and until the Einstein quote can be corroborated with an actual citation to a reliable source, please keep it out this article.

68.180.82.98 (talk) 00:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Albert Einstein, when asked to describe Radio, replied:

"You see, Wire Telegraph is a kind of a very, very long cat.

You pull his tail in New York and his head is meowing in Los Angeles. Do you understand this?

And Radio operates exactly the same way: you send signals here, they receive them there.

The only difference is that there is no cat."

The word 'radio' is used to describe this phenomenon, and radio transmissions are classed as radio frequency emissions.

Here is the quote. Placed here so ppl can find a ref. IIRC, he did say this ... J. D. Redding 01:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I have done much surfing for the origin of this quote to no avail. While hundreds of pages are devoted to this subject, all are unsourced for this quote. I have sent an email to the Editorial Assistant of the Einstein Papers Project to try to nail down a source. I'll post a reply if I get one.----Asher196 (talk) 04:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Here is the reply I received from Osik Moses of the Einstein Papers Project at Caltech:

"I’m sorry to say that there might be no authentic source for this quote. Alice Calaprice included this in her “Attributed to Einstein” section of her book The New Quotable Einstein, p. 292."----Asher196 (talk) 12:48, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Why is this nescessary?

"Radio has also been used by various groups as a tool in terrorism." Is there any good reason this is here? I would think this falls under combat or war use. Smells like Fox News alarmism to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.7.191.218 (talk) 04:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

It seems a bit unimportant, without some context. Carl.bunderson (talk) 04:52, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the sentence, and moved the embedded wikilink to See also. Carl.bunderson (talk) 01:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Marconi and Bose

I have modified the entry "In December of 1901 Guglielmo Marconi used J.C. Bose's inventions to receive the radio signals...." to remove the reference to Bose. Clearly the time-line shows that each new development derived from work of those who came before. Why is Bose mentioned but not any of the others? Certainly Hughes's work on the Detector was years ahead of Bose. Gutta Percha (talk) 15:00, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Incomprehensible sentence

This sentence has been edited/cut and pasted to the point that it makes no sense. Also is the citation appropriate? As a lay person trying to find some info about radio,I can't do anything other than point out to you experts that it needs fixing up.

Although invention was long attributed to Guglielmo Marconi in 1943 the U.S. Supreme court reversed itself grant full invention patent to Tesla, the identity of the original inventor of radio, at the time called wireless telegraphy, is contentious.[2]

V1oletv (talk) 00:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. It was indeed in bad shape. I think you'll find it much clearer now. Hertz1888 (talk) 00:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Inner Workings of a Radio - Radio Mechanics

Hi, I just wondered whether it might be an idea to add to the existing article a subsection showing various radio circuits and indicating in this manner how a radio actually functions. I do not know whether I just did not read the article carefully enough or another one exists outlining the basic principles of creating a radio signal through a reverberating electro-magnetic field and other suggestions about how signals are actually recieved and decyphered - I am much confused about this. Surely the energy required to cause enough of a reverberation in a magnetic field to travel a considerable distance in huge - if so how does current technology have the capability to recieve such slight signals as the reverberations would obviously diminish the further from the source by some considerable extent. I did not think multiple transmission stations where used in signal transmission - perhaps somebody might answer my questions here? Finally,in relation to radio signals travelling around the earth does not the earths on magnetic field skew transmissions or alter transmission paths? If the answer to Bold textall Bold text of my questions are in the article I found it extremely difficult to find them! Perhaps the contents might be subdivided? Many Thanks--11thConcerto (talk) 17:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Including "various radio circuits" is really beyond the scope of wikipedia. This isn't a howto, and such circuits would be very large and distract from the description of what a radio is. Other articles (linked to this one) describe most of the rest of what you are looking for. How signals are "decyphered" is described in modulation. Discussions about the energy of radio waves is in effective radiated power. I don't know about earth's magnetic field affecting radio (it's probably too weak to do that), but other effects should be described in radio propagation. --ssd (talk) 05:41, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I think this is a valid observation - it's not possible to go into details of all the different circuits used in a radio, but I think we could give a block diagram explanation of oscillator (energy source), modulator, sending antenna, propagation through space, receiving antenna, tuning, and demodulation. Here on Wikipedia we tend to jump to a detail description of one side of one leaf when the reader might have been looking for more of an overview of the forest. I think I'll have a try at it. --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:44, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Automotive

The article on Delco says "In 1936 Delco began producing the first dashboard-installed car radios." Wouldn't a section on the development of automotive radios be interesting? Sca (talk) 18:19, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Oops! I see there already is an article Car audio. Among other things, it says both Motorola and Philco developed car radios before Delco. Sca (talk) 18:28, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Update of page needed

Is it just me, or is this page a little bit outdated? I mean, look at the picture. Radio is not dead! And this page makes it look like it. Who doesn't still listen to FM radio?

Anyway, a little bit of information needs to be included which explains how the radio waves are CONTROLLED, viz. how much does it cost to get a radio station, etcetera. It's interesting how FM radio is just at a normal little old frequency, but it costs bazillions to get a radio station. I can't find any information, and to be honest I'm about to go to sleep, but maybe some young journalist out there could do an expose (citing sources, of course, to keep "the OR/RS editors" away), tearing away protectionist veils, the truth lain naked upon the altar of justice. Indeed. Ddd1600 (talk) 08:25, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

A new meaning of "radio"?

I was thinking about the "radio circuits" discussed above and I confused myself. Is there a new meaning of radio evolving? I used to think of a radio as some circuits that communicated intelligence using radio waves. Now cable TV doesn't use radio waves to broadcast signals. The internet also provides "radio" programming without EM waves. With so much music on a chip, I rarely receive anything by RF anymore except cell phone calls. And what about circuits in a software defined radio, where is the local oscillator? I don't suppose we need to acknowledge any of this in the article? John (talk) 19:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Software-defined radio still uses a local oscillator. Most SDR designs downconvert or subsample the signal before digitizing it. --ssd (talk) 22:58, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Signals traveling inside wire are also electromagnetic waves. Cable TV signals both digtal and analog are electromagnetic waves. How do you get your Internet? Wirelessly?. If you still plug into a wall to get your Internet it's still an electromagnetic signal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.204.84.195 (talk) 02:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Here's a bit of correction to the above. Electromagnetic waves do not travel "inside" or "in" wires. High frequency radio waves (or higher) travel along the outsides of wires, or other kinds of electrical conductors. Hence, those electromagnetic waves exist in a small region of space that surrounds the wires. These are called "guided waves" because they are attached to the outside of the conductor, and they follow it, but they do not go inside it. The electrons beneath the surface of the conductor move just a tiny bit, and the electrons deep beneath the surface move not at all.
The same kind of electronic equipment can be used to generate electromagnetic waves that can either propagate through free space or as guided waves as described above. (In other words, they are just as "happy" either way.) For example, a 200 MHz TV signal can come to you from a broadcasting station via free space, or the same signal can come to you as a guided wave via a cable television system. It makes no difference to the signal, and the results look the same on your TV set.

If you take a piece of twin-lead television cable that is carrying an electromagnetic wave signal, then there is a rapidly-varying electric field in the space between the two wires, and there is a rapidly-varying magnetic field in the space surrounding the two wires. Theoretically, these field extend for many kilometers, but as a practical matter, 99 percent of the electromagnetic power lies within a few centimeters of the twin-lead cable.

If you use a piece of good coaxial cable to carry the same electromagnetic signal, one again the electrons in the inner and outer conductors of the cable do not move very much at all. The electromagnetic wave exists in the space between the two conductors, with a rapidly-varying electric field extending from the inner conductor to the outer, and rapidly-varying magnetic field circling the inner conductor but confined by the outer conductor. Thus, 99.99 percent of the electromagnetic power is kept between the two conductors as a guided wave. (The rest of it is just the wasted power.) The space inside the coaxial cable can be filled with air, or vacuum, but it is usually filled with some kind of non-conducting plastic, rubber, paper, etc. In effect, the elecromagnetic waves are just as "happy" either way. By the way, either a twin-lead line, a coaxial-cable, or a few other types is a transmission line for guided radio waves.

In a system that uses both radio waves through free space and a cable, the interconnection, "interface", or "transducer" between the two is the antenna. That is the sole purpose of the antenna: it captures radio waves from free space, and it directs them down the transmission line to your receiver - whether it is a radio set, a TV set, or whatever. The same thing happens in reverse at the transmitters.

To summarize, the signal does not travel "in the wires", but rather it travels as an electromagnetic wave that is attached to the surface of the conductor.

98.67.111.148 (talk) 17:23, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Visible?

The adj. visible should be dropped from the definition of radio. Infrared light is also below visible light but is not consideard radio. The devision between light or optics starts to occur in the terahertz part of the spectrum. 71.204.84.195 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 02:44, 24 October 2008 (UTC).

How about if we say something like "electromagnetic waves millions or billions of times longer than those of visible light"? Hertz1888 (talk) 03:16, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

It is a bit wordy but more accurate 130.207.218.196 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 18:46, 24 October 2008 (UTC).

I noticed it was just changed from "visible light" to "light". I think it was better before. From the "light" article: "light is often used to refer to electromagnetic radiation of all wavelengths, whether visible or not." So it could be argued that radio waves are light. How about something like "with frequencies much less than those of visible light" or "with frequencies below those of visible light, infrared radiation, and microwaves." Carlsotr (talk) 22:01, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I can agree that the terms "ultraviolet light" and "infrared light" are frequently used and well-understood.

However, these forms of electromagnetic waves are never called "light", nor should they be: {gamma rays, X-rays, radio waves}. If someone wrote in the article on "light" that light is any kind of electromagnetic radiation at all - that is just plain wrong and also wrongheaded. Do not imitate people like those. 98.67.111.148 (talk) 15:49, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Polarity Modulation

Would someone add a discussion of this subject?

This is a simple form of digital radio modulation, also known as BPSK. Try looking up BPSK, phase-shift keying, digital communications, digital radio, and so forth.

98.67.111.148 (talk) 14:44, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Please help edit the appearance of a name

Please help edit the appearance of the name Alexander Stepanovich Popov in the table in the upper right-hand corner of this article. As it stand now, this name appears as
Alexander Stepanovich
Popov
Hence, it is made to appear as the name of two men: one named "Alexander Stepanovich", and the other simply named "Popov".
Such things are not unknown, since there have been many people who have gone by one name, such as Gandhi, Lenin, Peter, Peter (the Great), Charlemagne, Arthur, El Cid ("the Cid"), and thousands of others are commonly referred to by just their surnames or given names: Marconi, Einstein, Galileo, Newton, Leibnitz, Beethoven, Mozart, Gauss, Euler, Goethe, Schiller, Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Columbus, Magellan, Voltaire, Watt, Spock, Hitler, Stalin, etc.98.67.111.148 (talk) 14:25, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

We get the idea. No need to make the list any longer or link the names. I've added commas in the infobox. That may help clarify the listing until someone comes along who knows a better way to do it. Hertz1888 (talk) 15:45, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Janicekaye, 29 July 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Hi...I would like the article to make it clear that Reginald Fessenden was Canadian. Janicekaye (talk) 16:16, 29 July 2010 (UTC) Janicekaye (talk) 16:16, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

None of the others (Marconi, Tesla, Popov, etc.) in this article are identified by nationality. Is there any special reason Fessenden should be an exception? - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:30, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Radio article: The "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)It was Marconi who discovered that you got better range by shielding various parts of the receiver from interference; that range was proportional to the square root of antenna height; that you could produce a directional beam by placing the antenna at the focus of a metallic parabola; and who invented coherer designs an order of magnitude more sensitive. And it was Marconi who invented "syntony" (what we would nowdays call "tuning"), invented the concept of radio channels and built a device that was able to operate with multiple channels simultaneously. (not bad for a door to door seller).

3) 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 !!!!!!

4) 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).

5)Marconi apparatus allowed the receiver to switch into transmitter and viceversa, it could work in duplex. (not bad for a door to door seller.)

6) 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 do 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) 11:07, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments on modifications

I'd like to highlight the fact that before my modifications, Marconi as scientist involved in the radio development had simply not existed in the radio article (history paragraph)!!!! No mention of his apparatus, no mention of his experiments, NOTHING !! He just pop up in the commercialization paragraph (of course since he is just the dodgy bussinesman ripping off the poor Tesla ). Maybe you can believe that the vikings were the first one to discover America but you cannot write a paragraph titled "The history of discovery of America" without mentioning Colombo and his landing in 1492. Maybe you can believe that the landing on the moon was just a fake but you cannot write a paragraph titled "The history of spatial exploration" without describing Apollo 11 mission. Marconi 1895 experiments was the milestone in the history of radio that the scientific comunity (and not) has universally accepted yet you had never mentioned it !!!! I repeat myself : radio transmission means sending signals at long distance !!!! And Marconi was the first one to achieve it in 1895. The other scientists transmitted signals that had not gone go beyond their laboratory's walls !! You cannot put Marconi and the other experimenters to the same levels (and you had done even worst).

I read you comments on my modifications: In July 1895 Guglielmo Marconi created the first wireless system capable of transmitting a signal at long distances (2500 m).[dubious – discuss] Dubious-discuss ???? Are you doubting the 1895 Marconi's experiments? c'mon let's be serious. Show me the existence of a complete engineering apparatus capable of sending signals at long distance, before Marconi 1895 experiments, and we can start a discussion !!!! your comment is erased

Following his experiments, Marconi deduced that transmission range is proportional to the square of the antenna height (Marconi's law).[8] This formula represents the first and basic law on which every radio apparatus is based.[citation needed] Citation needed? It is like putting a citation on the speech : "The gravitational force is...". And then requiring another citation on the subsequent speech: "that is way all the apples fall from the trees". It is obvious that all the radio apparatus follow Marconi's law. Your comment is erased

I've tried to be within the common sense. I know that "Teslaphile", in this article, had just tried to cast a dark shadow to Marconi in order to enphatize Tesla's role in the development of radio. I can absure you that you had done it in such a ridicolous way that the only thig you have achieved is to damage Tesla' image !!!! Magnagr (talk) 08:16, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I have replaced the tags. Certain things may be "obvious" to you, but WP is based on verifiablity and requires reliable sourcing. Please read or review these policies. Also, please assume good faith on the part of other editors. Calling those with whom you may disagree "Teslaphiles" or other such names is potentially disruptive, and not in the spirit of collaborative editing. Thank you. Hertz1888 (talk) 09:06, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Mistyifing history of science is the only disruptive thing. I've noticed that in all the article only my contribution requires 3 citations in just two lines (guess why....). Therefore I erase again the comments on my contribution. Magnagr (talk) 09:26, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I have no preference for Tesla or Marconi. My only interest is in ensuring that information is accurately documented, free from assertions which can can not be verified. I'm happy to give your entries consideration; but solid, verifiable sourcing is needed to back them up. Wildbear (talk) 19:51, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

It so strange that only each speech of my contribution needs a verifiable sourcing. It doesn't happen with the contribution of other authors, yet I'm just reporting the well known story of radio that even the stones know. I don't have problem in providing the correct reference for each one of my assertions.Magnagr (talk) 20:37, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Within Wikipedia's Guglielmo Marconi article the following is stated (currently in reference 9): "Marconi's late-1895 transmission of signals was for around a mile (1.6 km). This was small compared to Tesla's early-1895 transmissions of up to 50 miles. For more see "Nikola Tesla On His Work with Alternating Currents and Their Application to Wireless Telegraphy, Telephony, and Transmission of Power", Leland I. Anderson, Twenty First Century Books, 2002, pp. 26-27." Who is correct? I don't know. I like references — especially references which get close to the point of origin and which make the issue very clear. When matters are in doubt, it can be helpful to have multiple references, to provide corroboration and back up the assertion. What you have been putting forward is not commonly known and not without debate. I have been working with radio and electronics for more than 40 years, and I still have not seen a clear, verifiably accurate picture of what happened at this time in history. As it stands, multiple articles on Wikipedia conflict with each other on this matter, and it needs to be sorted out with good referencing. Wildbear (talk) 21:56, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I think that we are all rational people and common sense should be our main guidance. If Tesla (or who else) in 1895 had achieved long distance radio transmission(50 miles) before the italian scientist he would have been hailed as the "father of Radio" and not Marconi. Yet Tesla had many advantages towards Marconi: He was already well established in the scientific community while Marconi was an "outsider"; Tesla lived in what was already one of the most industrialized and advanced country in the world and not in the 1895 backward Italy; Tesla had the support of industrial multinationals working in the electric fields which would have taken profits from a working radio apparatus, Marconi had none to back him. Maybe Tesla was not concerned with money but he was obsessed with being recognized as the first one in achieving something. So, why his long distance transmission was not recorded, recognized, accepted, why he was not considered the father of this new technology? Shall we believe to the old story of Tesla persecuted by the establishment? Well, Marconi was more persecuted and hated than Tesla. He was not an academic and the scientific world hated him. The big industrial companies which built submarine cables saw their business in danger, since a Marconi's radio station cost only 120000 pounds compared to the 3 milion pounds of a transatlantic submarine cable connection, so there was as well a lot of ostracism towards him by the industry world. Moreover he was an outspoken supporter of the fascist regime and in the after war Italy (and abroad) his memory and works were completely neglected and forgotten (in Italy in 1945 the official celebration of the radio anniversary was even cancelled and the Elettra boat demolished). More important, as I wrote before, Tesla's apparatus would have never worked on long distances. Only Marconi's radioreceiver had the characteristics to do it. Nowadays Tesla has became more famous than Marconi just because Marconi has been depicted as a fascist just focused on making money, while Tesla the poor scientist forgotten by the evil world. Tesla has the support of the people of his native country (Serbia and Croatia) and that one where he operated (USA), Marconi not (even today is difficult to see on the italian TV some documentary about him). Following the "Dan Brown" culture it seems that only the "anti-story" is true, that's another reason why Tesla has became so popular. Moreover, for obscure reasons Tesla has became a sort a cult for freaky "New age" people who consider him as a sort of divinity (read some comments on him on youtube and you'll be appaled). I've just moved abroad and I couldn't take with me my books on Marconi and the history of radio, anyway I'll try to put the required references as soon as possible. Magnagr (talk) 10:31, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Notes on reverting

My previous and fully referenced section on Marconi as inventor and scientist (which before me didn't exist at all !!!!) has been erased or modified without my opinion or comment. The 1943 US sentence is ridiculously long and is just a POV of the authors. No court case was ever held to decide who the inventor of the radio was. The aim of the article is to discredit Marconi in order to make believe Tesla as the inventor of the radio. My version has a NPOV, not yours !! Magnagr (talk) 14:28, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I improved it. And inserted Marconi's law. --J. D. Redding 20:16, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Why did you remove Marconi's law? WTF? --J. D. Redding 21:16, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

And in a related edit in the Induction motor ... you did this! What are you doing? Please read Silvanus Phillips Thompson books! --J. D. Redding 21:20, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

No draw, model, patent, public demonstration about 1882 Tesla's "conceivement". No serious book about induction motor reports the 1882 "conceived idea" but just 1885 ( Galileo Ferraris) and 1888 (Ferraris and Tesla). Your reference reports only Tesla own words. Magnagr (talk) 21:36, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Could one of you explain why you are edit warring? Is it a "Marconi invented radio" versus "Tesla invented radio" dispute? - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:28, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Magnagr has been reverted on several occasions by several different editors in several different articles.

No one person invented radio, see invention of radio. But notice, Magnagr is editing Italian and non-Tesla views. Also he is removing referenced material. 23:36, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I just compared the two versions, and I agree that the current version is preferable to Magnagr's additions that appear to unduly favor Marconi. - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:46, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Magnagr's additions that appear to unduly favor Marconi??? I don't know if crying or laughing......Let's check your "balanced" version

1)According to the Proceedings of the United States Naval Institute in 1899, the Marconi instruments had a "[...] coherer, principle of which was discovered some twenty years ago, [and was] the only electrical instrument or device contained in the apparatus that is at all new".[15].

Among the hundred of scientists and the most prestigious scientific society backing Marconi you have been able to mention the "world famous" United States Naval Institute just to discredit Marconi..

2)In 1943 the United States Supreme Court upheld Tesla's patent for radio, number 645,576 (1897), with the supreme court's justification that claim 16 in Marconi's related patent, number 763,772 (1904), contained nothing new not having been published earlier and registered by Tesla, Lodge, and others. After years of patent battles by Marconi's company, the United States Supreme Court, in the 1943 case "Marconi Wireless Telegraph co. of America v. United States", held regarding the priority of engineering advances concerning the invention of radio that "[but] it is now held that in the important advance upon his basic patent Marconi did nothing that had not already been seen and disclosed".[18][19] The decision effectively awarded priority of the invention of radio to Tesla and his 1893 presentation in St. Louis.[20] Although Marconi claimed that he had no knowledge of prior art taken from Tesla's patents, the supreme court considered his claim false.[21] In addition to the June 21, 1943 ruling made by the supreme court, the United States Court of Claims also invalidated the fundamental Marconi patent earlier, in 1935.[22] This case defined radio by the statement: "A radio communication system requires two tuned circuits each at the transmitter and receiver, all four tuned to the same frequency."[23] Because Tesla's 1897 patent for radio was intended for general transmission of energy, the court determined that Tesla's patent clearly was the first to disclose a system which could be used for wireless communication of intelligible messages (such as human voice and music) and used the four-circuit tuned combination.

A TEN LINES very balanced comment on a groundless urban legend. The 1943 court case was not intended to decided who the inventor of the radio was and never stated that Tesla was the inventor of the radio !!! Why don't you report as well the comments of the court in favour of Marconi that I wrote and that u obviously ignored, and this would be the balanced version !?!?!?

I omit to discuss the ridiculous diagram showing the patent's right evolution

And I should continue to rely on your good faith....Magnagr (talk) 00:14, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Additions such as "The event marked the dawn of a new era in radio transmission technology" are what I was referring to. They are undue weight as well as original research. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:33, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

If the Titanic survivors had to rely on Lodge or Tesla few meters radio apparatus they would have surely died. You should have asked to one of them if the Marconi's invention didn't marked the dawn of a new era.... Magnagr (talk) 10:36, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Comments

Again 1) Marconi sent signal at 1.5 miles and not 1.5 km. The related reference has been erased since is not a reference but just an author's comment against Marconi. 2)The USA Naval Institute is a not rigorous source, I can put many others source saying the contrary. 3)The 10 LINES comments about the 1943 US supreme court is just an author POV, ridiculously long and unequivocally an anti Marconi and a pro Tesla spot. Tesla has never replaced Marconi as the inventor of the radio! The reference 20 in your version say that only Tesla supporters (as u) consider the sentence as a prove that Tesla invented the radio and not the scientific community!! Or you change drastically this passage of the article or I will continue on erasing it.Magnagr (talk) 21:13, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

The current version is one of the less balanced article ever seen in wikipedia. It has been written just to stab in the back Marconi and to show Tesla as the only inventor of the radio. It cannot be present in wikipedia for a longer period. Or the authors propose quite soon valid correction to the article or I will edit again my version.Magnagr (talk) 23:54, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Revisions to Amateur Radio section

Edits like this one that take what's intended to be a brief, broad summary of amateur radio and refocus it with UK-specific information are unhelpful. As Kvng did, I too felt your addition of a main article link was redundant, and so removed it. Responding by removing all links to main articles was not good form. How about you explain what it is you want to do, and let's see if we can reasonably do that, stay within WP policy, and arrive at what's best for the article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:43, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

It is interesting, (but not challenging), to find a Wikipedia article with its own police force, and group of censors operating in unison. Wp:OWN?. My edits are both factual and informative to compliment, and make clear, the content that an article contains. When editing articles I take care to add country specific information with regard to my additions. This avoids confusion to the reader, and assists other contributors to assess the validity of my contrbution.

With reference to the Amatuer radio section:-

• The first point

The license is not for "enjoyment", it is granted, (after suitable examination), as a privilige, not a right to broadcast in general. I have my City and Guilds certificates in my shack, and am suitably proud of the achievement and years of studying morse code it took to get them. C.B. radio, (which I also have used 30 years ago), is for the purpose of "enjoyment", not usually experiment.

• Point 2

If it is to be a brief, broad section, why include information about "lives saved"?. We don`t do this in articles about Telegraphy or Telephony etc. No attempt has be made to show the reader *why* or *how* HAM organisations allow this be acheived. We are not allowed to broadcast on public broadcast frequencies, no matter what the emergency. (P.S., transmission modes are not "nostalgic", try working "across the pond" using USB in noisy conditions, with 100 hz bandwidth CW filter it`s like "talking next door" and faster than PSK31.)Francis E Williams (talk) 20:00, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

• Point 3

If "some of the frequncy bands may suffer interference", under what circumstances "may" they be interfered with? and from what major primary sources?. It wold take a long sentence to make it simple to the reader.

• Point 3

If links to the main article are to be included on the text for this section, as opposed to WP:MOS, why not try to be consistent with this practice througout the article?

Finally, - It is also bad form to "edit war" and instantly remove factual information. Radio is not country specific, the section has no country specific focus. If it takes me this long to add a few sentences to each article, I will be dead before I make any useful contributions. I now suffer with Macular degeneration, it has taken me hours to type up and post this reply to show I mean no harm to this article. Do you vet all editors to this article on the talk pages? My above comments are made with good intention, combined with both knowledge and experience, verifiable by research, as so are my edits to any article. I will be most interested to provide knowledge, and be involved in any article that includes content about, Antenna, Radio, Amateur Television, Digital computers, Sound Recording, Electronic Engineering etc. having spent a lifetime qualified in these fields I feel able to add somewhat to this young Encyclopedia. I can only encourage all contributors to be accurate, if you don`t know it, please research it more thoroughly first. The whole world is watching what you do. End of lesson one, :), 73s, RegardsFrancis E Williams (talk) 19:51, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Francis. Re Point 4, I agree with you that the use of links to main articles should be consistent. I'm guessing we've been using the mainlinks at "Electromagnetic spectrum" and "Early history" only because the words do not appear in the first line or two of text and are not there to link to, as they do in "Amateur Radio". But I'm open to finding a better way to do it. Re your other points, I'll add my thoughts a bit later, and in the meantime I'm hoping a few others will join the discussion so we can ponder your suggestions and form a consensus of how to write the "Amateur Radio" paragraph in a way that best serves this article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:23, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello again, sure, no problem, take all the time you need. The only thing is, the article will remain grade "B+ to "C-" until parts of it become more complete, factually accurate and grammatically correct for readability. Some of the most important uses to mankind are in medicine (MRI scanner), radio astronomy and astrophysics, particle physics, metallurgy, aircraft landing systems etc.. I guess that serious contributors will shy away from contributing to bring it up to GA class if this is the way you chose to welcome factual and verifiable content. I hope you recognise the fact that tutors are not inexperienced, nor lacking in knowledge of their fields of expertise, it doesn`t all come from reading books you know.Francis E Williams (talk) 12:11, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Redraft "Amateur Radio section"

I had a chance to look over the material again this morning. I propose we might improve the "amateur radio" section of this article by adapting the definition from the main amateur radio article. It's been relatively stable over there for some time and its evolution represents a fair consensus of opinions.

• I think the scope of its definition addresses our point #1 and avoids limiting the purpose of ham radio solely to "experimentation".

• For point #2, "ham radio saving lives" is something that could be arguably kept as relevant to a general audience, or deleted as puffery. I honestly don't care either way, since "public service" covers the issue much more objectively. And characterizing CW as "nostalgic" I feel was someone's good-faith attempt to contrast the historical/technological scope of the modes that hams use, rather than disparage CW as a mode. Perhaps it may be better not to characterize the modes at all. I would however change Lowfer to something else since it's not actually a "mode", or lose it altogether.

• As to point #3, I'm not convinced that a discussion of the effect of power-line internet service on amateur radio really belongs in a short summary subsection about the hobby. No doubt we can cite sources for it, and it certainly is an important issue to hams. I just wonder if it's appropriate to give weight to in this situation.

• Finally, I wonder if our paragraph might benefit by some brief description of regulatory infrastructure of the hobby and its global scale, e.g. numbers of participants. Your thoughts are, of course, appreciated on all of these matters. I've drafted a sample paragraph below that incorporates some of the revs we talked about:

Amateur radio, often called ham radio, is both a hobby and a service in which participants, called "hams", use various types of radio communications equipment to communicate with other radio amateurs for public services, recreation and self-training. The term "amateur" is used to differentiate it from commercial two-way radio services. Radio amateurs use a variety of modes including Morse code, and several forms of radio were pioneered by radio amateurs and later became commercially important including FM, single-sideband (SSB), AM, digital packet radio, PSK and satellite repeaters. Amateur radio operation is licensed by individual governing nations and coordinated through the International Telecommunication Union. An estimated two million people throughout the world are regularly involved with amateur radio.

NB: I realize you may have some eyesight issues, so I've tried to make the Talk page as easy as possible to navigate. Cheers - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:23, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello again Louie, appreciate the layout. I think we are talking from the same page here now, and the proposal to change the paragraph is a major step in the right direstion, but i`m runnig out of gas (becoming impatient) here waiting at these traffic lights on the Interstate junction of your community. ( to make my contributions). I guess I`ll take my chances and back up the old R.V. across the central reservation and go back down the I95 to Daytona. It`s warmer there, and who knows, I might go visit the snow birds on the white sands of Clearwater on the west coast of orange county. ( try some place else where I can do more good ). After some chow I`ll leave a parcel here on the sidewalk. food I'll lave some possible contributions on nthe talk page. If someone from the community wants to venture out and pick through the pieces if some one wants to assess their suitability, there may be some useful stuff, maybe not, we`ll see.

• Just a thought, (not thought for the day)

This section should be at the start of your article really, when you get up in the morning, switch on the radio, check your cell phone for texts, spend a while on the Nintendo DSi, shuffle about a bit on your Wii in front of your Satellite enabled TV. Perhaps then you might switch on the Wireless note book to check emails. On your way out you`ll reach for the wireless fob to open the garage, go for the one that unlocks the automoble, switch on the radio for traffic information, poke the screen on the Sat Nav with your finger. We take this technology for granted. If it wasn`t for the "Hams" (with the heavy "ham fisted" hands on those morse keys all those years ago), you (we) wouldn`t be able to do diddley squat any of thses things when you(we) wake up to another new technological day. Like Arnie, "I`ll be back" this way soon after I`ve warmed up, and gassed up again. (had a break.)(...- .-) (end of morse code work). (-.. .) (-- ----- ..-. . .--) (--.- .-. -) ( . . ) 73s Francis E Williams (talk) 10:07, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello again, That is so much better after the break!, O.K. Louie, this my suggestion based upon the original section content. Here goes:-

Main article: Amateur radio

"HAMS", (Amateur radio enthusiasts), are licensed and regulated internationally to establish their own transmitting stations on a wide range of allocated frequencies. Station operators may pursue further radio propagation research, or use the service for various other purposes including recreation. HAMs established many new transmission modes that public broadcast stations have adopted commercially. Currently, (2011), many of the more efficent modes are not suitable for general public use due to their technical difficulties and specialist equipment requirements. HAM stations now suffer from the very systems that they helped to create. This is due to the widespread use of wireless devices in the home and office in densely populated areas. Their worldwide network of Internet linked repeater stations have been instrumental in saving lives in emergency situations.

I have added of few historical refs today as well. I hope they have filled in a gap or two.Francis E Williams (talk) 18:06, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

::* The drop off point * Adjudication *I humbly submit to the court the following for possible inclusion into the article

Here are some things I have researchad for this article, they may be suitable for inclusion:-

• In 1873 Frederick Guthrie discovered that a thermionic device could be shown to conduct elecrical current in one direction only.

• In 1880 Thomas Eddison also observed an effect in his research and production of light bulbs, he was able to show that D.C was only able to flow in one direction through his modified light bulb. He had inadvertantly discovered the thermonic diode but failed to register the patent for it.

• reason for inclusion:- 1893 -"waitng for the invention of the vacuum tube" - link. 20th century section - "Invention of the vacuum tube".

• 1901 ref for atlantic signal - Poldhu transmitter - 1896 patent filed.

::* Plea. I wish to plead guilty for checking some external links, may the court be merciful

I hope you don`t mind but I have cleaned up and checked some external links while I have been waiting.. Francis E Williams (talk) 21:30, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Louie, your draft looks good to me. It might benefit from some additional links, but perhaps they appear in other sections. Thanks. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 00:23, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, could you also comment on Francis' draft (below)? - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:51, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

This censored talk contribution has now been reverted. Please do not change the order or context of other signed contributions. It may be confusing to readers. thank you for your co-operation.Francis E Williams (talk) 10:31, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

No one is censoring anything Francis. I am finding it increasingly difficult to follow some of your postings. They seem like random thoughts and musings, such as this which seems to be a diary or editorial, and these confusing headers e.g. "Plea" and "Adjudication". - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:17, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

"Censorship" - I understand it to be the inapropriate removal or re-ordering of information which makes it more difficult to convey or understand the underlying content. I am still here waitng on this talk page for my potential contributions to be "judged" as to their admissability to this article. I have now suffered multiple edit reversions. What else can I do but present my own "case" for inclusion of edits other than list them here?

I think I am confusing you with my typically "British" sense of humour, It did not take me long, while in the "American Isles", to understand the fundamental difference and variations we share in our common tongue. A good example is "crafty" or "artful". In the U.K. it usually means "devious in nature", "underhand in character", generally a term used to describe a person to avoid in any financial situation. While in the U.S. it means what it says, someone who is creative and carries out the process of crafting an item.

I`m trying not to take this seemingly un-neccesary process seriously, just using various terms to lighten up the protracted process of what should be an enjoyable process of editing this article, and to try and show what I perceive to be the "officious" nature of what is taking place here. I am trying to remain calm even though this is taking a long time for me to be allowed to contribute. I cannot emphasise that in my experience of editing this Encyclopedia, this has now become a major obstacle to overcome. It does not comply with WP:OWN, but your right to defend the integrity of a time consuming creation, "This article" (are understandable). Jimmy Wales advocates "Be bold", hs doesn`t advocate "be bold and waste your time here" that orignators of articles should block suitable contributions. I`m sorry if a little confusion has been caused, but have a brief look at my user page, it might explain things better than I can here. We have now written a "novel" between us, but not one extra "potential improvement" has been added to this article yet. It`s still regards from me. Francis E Williams (talk) 16:59, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Francis, I'm very sorry you feel that collaboration on the article Talk page is an "un-neccesary process". Also I am having difficulty agreeing with the changes you propose to the "amateur radio" section of the article. I don't think capitalizing the word "HAM" every time it's written or unreferenced observations such as "many of the more efficent modes are not suitable for general public use due to their technical difficulties and specialist equipment requirements" are an improvement. Also, editorializing such as, "HAM stations now suffer from the very systems that they helped to create" would have to be sourced to published opinion. But I'll leave it to other editors to weigh in on these matters and work with you to improve the article, as I'm going to take a wikibreak from this article for a little while. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:17, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Louie, I am probably the largest contributor to this tage page by now, simple things like capitalisation can be modofied. The word is spelt with a capital to avoid confusion with the meat with the same name. Refernces are available and may be provided if your are unable to source yourself. Try describing how to tune a B.F.O. and switch band width filters in and out to a "lay person". RSGB has sources for "interference caused by new technology". Doesn`t the ARRL ?, which I belive you are a member of. May I suggest a re-read of the talk page now it is back togheter as it was before "editing". I guess we are still going to have to wait yet another day to resolve this WP:OWN issue. Francis E Williams (talk) 17:33, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

After reading both versions of the rewrite, I have comment. LuckyLouie's version is succinct and to-the-point, briefly addressing major points of the topic without getting into needless specifics, which are of course better addressed on the main Amateur radio article. Francis' version, first of all, starts out inappropriately by using a capitalised form of "ham", which indicates it is an acronym of something. This is, of course, not correct. Further, it doesn't really address the topic of the paragraph, speaking of the operators rather than the service/hobby. This version also gets very specific about some things yet doesn't provide any kind of topic overview. It is written in a technical tone that, even as a ham radio operator, I had to re-read a couple of times to understand. The additional material Francis wanted to include goes even further off the mark into obscurity for such an overview.

Basically, I strongly oppose Francis' version, as it misses the point of a summary and is too technically orientated. If a rewrite is to be done, let it be Louie's rewrite, as it is understandable by the general public. — Huntster (t @ c) 03:21, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I oppose the above comments due to the fact that Louies` contribution removes all the content that was included in the ooriginal paragraph, (which NOBODY removed until I came along). It contains gramatical errors and is does not make clear that it is a technical subject that requires specialist knowledge. Having read it thirteen times, I still feel is is "dumbing down" the role that qualified technicians make to the amateur community. The fact that modern "amateurs" no longer have to be certified to a high level of technical competence implies that being a Radio Amareur, (Ham, HAM) is like being a member of a golf club. Amateurs in Europe do not consider themseves to be "Hams", do not refer to each other as "Hams", will never refer to themselves as "Hams", no matter which way it is spelt, of how many times you spell it. I appears to be country specific, American.

We do NOT communicate with each other as, or for, "public service", our licences specifically prohibits us from that, as a "real" amateur you should know that fact. On the other hand you may not, in which case you are not qualified to comment on the implied "fact". "Commercial two-way services", are nothing to do with Amateur radio, there is also PMR, a public non commercial two way system as well, that also has nothing to do with Amateur radio. If the paragraph is to be "non technical" why is half of it devoted to transmission modes?. Why also is there no correct title given to the International organisation that regulates the allocated frequecy bands for various countries throughout the world. I rest my case for the defense. Next witness please wonder if anyone else has a better reason for using a version like this, or would also like to comment?. Francis E Williams (talk) 14:40, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Globalize

shortened to "wireless" by the British

Who's that? No-one in the UK calls themselves "the British".

devices such as the vacuum tube

aka the 'thermionic valve' in most of the English speaking world, which deserves a brief mention.

the Isle of Wight, England. [...] Chelmsford, England

The place names are linked, and do not need continuously locating.

In the late 1960s, the U.S. long-distance telephone network began to convert to a digital network, employing digital radios for many of its links

Did nobody else?

Soon, the U.S. Navy experimented with satellite navigation

Did nobody else?

American AM radio stations

After two sentences on AM, we have a lengthy description of the history of American AM broadcasting. (What on earth is 'grandfathering'?)

WBCT-FM (93.7) in Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA, runs 320,000 watts ERP

After a paragraph on FM, there is a longer paragraph on the history of American FM broadcasting. (The reader would still love to know what 'grandfathering' is)

Television sends the picture as AM

Not in all the countries have have switched over to digital TV, it doesn't.

--Nigelj (talk) 16:10, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh dear, the very mention of Quadrature modulation, Vestigial (compresssed) sideband, swinging burst, phase shifed and suppressed carriers invoke images of a female nature in this singularly "British", once, (but now less), reserved native of the "British Isles"., Francis E Williams (talk) 16:20, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I have now removed the preceeding comment to comply with the requirements of this talk page. The list of countries I had so carefully crafted also did not comply, and has been removed. The serious countries to consider as contributors could include:- England, Ireland, Wales and Scotland, South Africa, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Gibralta, and various parts of the middle east. Francis E Williams (talk) 16:32, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

A British tar is a soaring soul, as free as a mountain bird... [[5]]. --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:19, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

From across the pond .... Thanks. Francis E Williams (talk) 15:59, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree that this does seem to give a rather US perspective, US patents are interesting but really only when compared to what happened in the rest of the world 128.232.133.242 (talk) 10:36, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Locating vandals

This link [6] is a tool to help users locate vandals.

Not so much; it gives you the address of the provider. Looking up my own IP routinely gives an address that's 3 days' drive away. The same sort of information is available if you look at the bottom of an IP's contribution page. --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:49, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Have a look at this one then [7]. I never look mine up, I get worried about looking in the mirror. Francis E Williams (talk) 22:04, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

New discussion

I'm following wikipedia suggestion

The examples and perspective in this article deal primarily with the United States and do not represent a worldwide view of the subject. Please improve this article and discuss the issue on the talk

I'm improving the article while u are just deleting sourced informations that don't suit the only goal represented by the previous contributions: give all the merit to tesla and ridiculize Marconi.

1) before reverting u are pleased to buy and read the references I put.

2) The Us supreme court was not called upon to give a decision regarding the paternity of the radio invention

3)“[…]Marconi's reputation as the man who first achieved successful radio transmission rests on his original patent” and “[..] To find in 1943 that what Marconi did really did not promote the progress of science because it had been anticipated is more than a mirage of hindsight”.

These are words present in the verdict, not mine.

4)[…]since his idea was to make the ether a conductor for long distances by using extremely high voltage, 20, 000,000 to 30,000,000 volts, and extremely high altitudes, 30,000 to 40, 000 feet or more, to secure transmission from aerial to aerial. Balloons, with wires attached reaching to the ground”

This plant which was never realized is the product of a sick mind. If u think that tesla is the inventor of the radio considering the description of this technological monstruosity, i suggest u to deal only with gardening articles !!! This is the description of tesla's plant in the verdict, not mine, anyway also this comment is sourced

5) Indeed, in the Marconi apparatus it was not about to generate, as in the Tesla experience, high level voltages at high frequency with the presence of micro-current but alternating voltages at a set frequency and polarization with significant current levels. Furthermore, in the Tesla's system the primary winding was made up of a few turn of a tick winding while the secondary was composed of millions of rounds of a thin winding. With the Marconi apparatus, the primary was realized by adopting the right number of turns to establish the right wave length of the condenser, and the secondary was made up of a few turns in order to be tuned with the radiation resistance of the antenna. Without all these expedients the low antenna's efficiency would have been too low to allow any long distance communication. In addition, only with the Marconi's system could the vertical antenna change wave lengths by just adding inductances and only his receiver could be switched into transmitter and viceversa (it could work in duplex)

I've detailed u the technoly difference between the 2 plants, what do u want more? This deescription is perfectly sourced, buy my references and study them before spitting sentences.

6). Economic, political and military interests have been the main reasons for hostility against Marconi

perfectly sourced, read them

7)Despite all this, the most prominent figures in the field of radio transmission at the time such as Pupin, Steinmetz and Preece had always enthusiastically hailed Marconi as the inventor of the radio

read what these people said about Marconi. u can find their opinion about Marconi in my sources, u've just to read them

8)This scientific legitimacy was confirmed by the success of his radio system which proved to be the only technology capable of transmitting long distance radio signals making possible a revolution in global communication.[33]

about this point I've just put 1 source but I could add many more — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magnagr (talk • contribs) 11:51, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

20 days without any answer or comment to my previous discussion. I suggest to erase the following passage on the article:

"In 1943 the United States Supreme Court upheld Tesla's patent for radio, number 645,576 (1897), with the supreme court's justification that claim 16 in Marconi's related patent, number 763,772 (1904), contained nothing new not having been published earlier and registered by Tesla, Lodge, and others. After years of patent battles by Marconi's company, the United States Supreme Court, in the 1943 case "Marconi Wireless Telegraph co. of America v. United States", held regarding the priority of engineering advances concerning the invention of radio that "[but] it is now held that in the important advance upon his basic patent Marconi did nothing that had not already been seen and disclosed".[19][20] The decision effectively awarded priority of the invention of radio to Tesla and his 1893 presentation in St. Louis.[21] Although Marconi claimed that he had no knowledge of prior art taken from Tesla's patents, the supreme court considered his claim false.[22] In addition to the June 21, 1943 ruling made by the supreme court, the United States Court of Claims also invalidated the fundamental Marconi patent earlier, in 1935.[23] This case defined radio by the statement: "A radio communication system requires two tuned circuits each at the transmitter and receiver, all four tuned to the same frequency."[24] Because Tesla's 1897 patent for radio was intended for general transmission of energy, the court determined that Tesla's patent clearly was the first to disclose a system which could be used for wireless communication of intelligible messages (such as human voice and music) and used the four-circuit tuned combination.[25]"

It is just a groundless grotesque denigration of Marconi. As I explained Marconi's system had nothing to do with the Tesla's one. If you want to keep the above mentioned passage I suggest you to balance it with the well referenced passage that you didn't allow to publish:

"Tesla’s supporters have often incorrectly interpreted this verdict as an official acknowledgement of the Serbian scientist's priority in the invention of the radio. [26] It should be highlighted that the supreme court was not called upon to give a decision regarding the paternity of the radio invention and the judges never put in doubt the primacy and the originality of the first complete radio system built by Marconi. Indeed, the supreme court’s verdict stated “[…]Marconi's reputation as the man who first achieved successful radio transmission rests on his original patent” and “[..] To find in 1943 that what Marconi did really did not promote the progress of science because it had been anticipated is more than a mirage of hindsight”.[27]Furthermore, Tesla’s wireless apparatus (who was never realized) was an unworkable system as can be deduced by its description: ”[…]since his idea was to make the ether a conductor for long distances by using extremely high voltage, 20, 000,000 to 30,000,000 volts, and extremely high altitudes, 30,000 to 40, 000 feet or more, to secure transmission from aerial to aerial. Balloons, with wires attached reaching to the ground”.[28] and lacked the basic theoretical and technical solutions present, instead, in the Marconi plant layout, to allow long distance radio transmission.[29] Indeed, in the Marconi apparatus it was not about to generate, as in the Tesla experience, high level voltages at high frequency with the presence of micro-current but alternating voltages at a set frequency and polarization with significant current levels. Furthermore, in the Tesla's system the primary winding was made up of a few turn of a tick winding while the secondary was composed of millions of rounds of a thin winding. With the Marconi apparatus, the primary was realized by adopting the right number of turns to establish the right wave length of the condenser, and the secondary was made up of a few turns in order to be tuned with the radiation resistance of the antenna. Without all these expedients the low antenna's efficiency would have been too low to allow any long distance communication. In addition, only with the Marconi's system could the vertical antenna change wave lengths by just adding inductances and only his receiver could be switched into transmitter and viceversa (it could work in duplex). Economic, political and military interests have been the main reasons for hostility against Marconi.[30][31] It’s worth remembering that Marconi was considered an outsider. He didn’t have the support of multinationals or academic institutions, he didn’t pursue a regular graduate education and he was only in his early 20’s when he developed the idea. Despite all this, the most prominent figures in the field of radio transmission at the time such as Pupin, Steinmetz and Preece had always enthusiastically hailed Marconi as the inventor of the radio .[32] This scientific legitimacy was confirmed by the success of his radio system which proved to be the only technology capable of transmitting long distance radio signals making possible a revolution in global communication.[33]"

I'll be waiting other 5 days, if no comment or consensus is achieved I'll introduce myself the necessary modification to the article.

Magnagr (talk) 12:13, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Wiki editors just love ultimatums. Don't change it. Take out anything that isn't referenced. --Wtshymanski (talk) 20:04, 6 August 2011 (UTC)