Talk:Thomas Edison/Archive 3

STOP REMOVING THE CRITICISM OF EDISON!!!!!
Edison committed numerous disgraceful deeds, which deserve mention just as much as his useless inventions.

(I don't mean to say that all his inventions were useless; just that the useless inventions are no more important than the lies and murder)

Edison never understood Alternating Current and many of his arguments against it were arguments ad hominem, rather than proper scientific discussion. He always insisted, right until the end, that DC was better than AC without ever properly understanding it.

Edison promised many investors that he would set up a Hydro Electricity plant at Niagra Falls and would power lights in thousands of houses with it. He never even started that power plant and he finally turned on the first lights, in New York, more than a year after his original promise and was still asking for more money. Those lights weren't powered by Hydro Electricity. He hadn't even finished his own lights when the deadline came.

Huey45 08:26, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Please take a chill pill and simmer down. Many of the criticisms you are stating have already in the article for a long time, so there is no point in repeating them in the "Criticism " section. Please read the article before you start adding statements that are already there. The idea of electrocution to replace hanging came largely from the horrible accidental electrocutions which were taking place on overhead high voltage ( 2.4kv and up) AC lines already in use for arc lights and AC lighting. Linemen or phone company workers or telegraph workers came in contact with the AC conductors on the poles and hung there burning. Edison did not invent electrocution. He did sponsor Brown who advocated its use for execution, and he did demonstrate the greater lethality of high voltage AC. AC was worse than DC at a given voltage, and high voltage was more dangerous than distribution voltage.  Find a book which says Edison did not understand electricity, and that he promised investors he would build a power plant at Niagara Falls to light New York City, and cite it properly. The lighting of New York from the Pearl Street plant was by coal fired steam engines, as designed. It is nonsense to claim Edison promised to generate low voltage electricity at Niagara Falls and light New York city with it. I have never seen any reference that stated that. He knew low voltage DC was only economic for a mile or two of distribution lines. Please do not make up history and try to insert it in an article. Find a reference where he insisted to the end (1931?) that DC was better for all uses than AC. Terminology like "Disgraceful deeds" is POV. Come up with reliable sources for statements, make them in an encyclopedic, non- point of view tone, and go for it. Find references to any dishonesty and document it. Material will be removed from the article which is shrill and POV, or which lacks reliable and verifiable supporting references. Thanks for your participation.Edison 22:36, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Edison had recognized back in 1880 that high voltage was needed to transfer electricity a long distance. He recognized that small wires could be used with high voltage. He paid $5000 for an option on an AC system, but in 1886 tests showed it was not yet commercially practical. He still preferred DC, since before about 1888 motors could not be operated efficiently on AC, existing AC equipment was very inefficient due to primitive transformers, and the higher voltage was more dangerous. By the early 1890's the problems with AC had been ironed out and AC installations vastly outnumbered DC installations, since a few large power stations were cheaper to operate than small stations every 2 miles or so, but he was ego involved with DC. The industry moved on past him. In 1908 Edison admitted he was wrong about AC (Matthew Josephson, Edison, a biography, 1959 p349.)


 * That's interesting and should be added to the article. It shows that Edison was not ignorant of the state of the art; he simply did not forsee the improvements that would soon be made in AC technology. By the time those improvements were made, Westinghouse had the AC patents and Edison was confined to DC.  Similar to what happened with Columbia and the wax disk phonograph. Greensburger 22:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Huey45: The "Criticism" section should net repeat what is already discussed in other sections. You added info about development of the light bulb in "Criticm" when it would fit better in the section "Incandescent era " Please read that section and see if you think it needs revision with any of the content you added. What is the source for your history of the electric light bulb development and introduction? A lot of the new material duplicates what is already there. Some more of your material in "Criticism" is about electrocution. That is already covered pretty much in the "War of the currents" section of this article, so please see if your material adds to that section instead of being a duplicate discussion in the Criticism section. Things in Wikipedia need to have reliable and verifiable sources to remain in the article. The article Topsy the Elephant says she had killed 3 men in 3 years, and the owners decided she had to be killed for safety. The ASPCA approved of electricution, as opposed to hanging, poisoning or other methods of killing an elephant (I wonder what was wrong with shooting?) and it worked pretty quickly, as shown by the movie. The "War of the currents" had been over for more than 10 years, and General Electric had moved on to AC years before. Edison was working on other areas, such as movies and phonographs, and not electric lights.  The sentence about Thomas Edison "distributing videos gladly" is pushing a point of view and needs to be toned down. Maybe he did it gladly, maybe he did it matter-of-factly or even sadly and reluctantly. Find a reference which says what his frame of mind was, or don't make a claim about it. He did not distribute "Videos" because videos did not exist until many decades later.   Edison 01:28, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Please keep edits neutral point of view and provide reliable and verifiable sources. Unsourced POV statements may be deleted. Note that the 6600 volt AC came from the "Edison Lighting Plant" per the newspaper reference from 1903 at Topsy (elephant) which demonstrates that in 1903 he was not still fighting the War of the Currents. That company was the predecessor of today's Consolidated Edison, and was not his company per se. No source has said that he personally was even there. The electrocution was done by 3 named employees either of the power company or his company; the article is not clear on that. The motion picture was a 2 minute film which was sold along with many others; I have not seen a source which says Edison made any particular effort to exhibit the film as opposed to it being one of many subjects his company made available to exhibitors, just like the many films of jugglers, prizefighters, dancers, re-enactments of battles, etc. Edison 20:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You idiot, the fact that the electricity for electrocuting Topsy came from an AC power plant shows that he was still fighting the War of the Currents. It is common knowledge that he only electrocuted the elephant to show how dangerous AC power was. If he wanted to show that AC power is dangerous, it would be logical to use AC power to cause harm, which is exactly what he did. Why don't u stop worshipping Edison and pay attention to the facts for once; he was a dickhead and an idiot. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Owen214 (talk • contribs) 06:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC).


 * As far as AC versus DC goes, being a qualified EE guy I must say I too am undoubtably fascinated with DC, specifically HVDC. The pros are simple and elementry to anyone well versed with designing high voltage applications. Now industrys come and go, it is not for anyone to comment eitherways. I still have not seen Edison ever say "I give up to AC" anywhere so please check on that.


 * Please sign your posts with four tildes ~. I saw a quote from circa 1904 from Edison to the son of Stanley, who invented/improved the AC power transformer, to the effect that he (Edison) had been wrong about AC power. Of course the War of the currents article says the Edison General Electric Company made AC systems, and the Edison Lighting Company in New York generated AC asa did the other Edison Companies around the company, which bore his name but he did not own. He moved on after the War of the currents was lost in the early 1890's. Edison 14:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Removed doubious claims in the criticism section that have no backing or citation whatsoever.68.40.165.17 08:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Wasn't his business moral pretty low too? Rumors has it he stole the film A trip to the Moon, showed it in USA as his own and earned money on a movie made by George Melies? 193.217.193.148 00:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The Melies film has been addressed previously in the talk page, I believe. His moral stature was probably no better or worse than that of his competitors, who routinely copied his movies and exhibited them without paying any royalties. Did Melies buy film rights from Jules Verne? I didn't think so. The trick was to make money when a new movie was first introduced, by selling copies of it to exhibitors before the thieves managed to start distributing pirated copies. There was a constant demand for new material with novelty value. A given film had a short shelf life in terms of appeal to viewers. The copyright status on movies was not clear in the beginning, since laws had not been enacted making them copyrightable like books, which led Edison to submit a complete paper print of some of his movies to the copyright office and copyright it as a photograph. These have been  the source for presently available copies of his turn of the century movies at the Library of Congress, since the celluloid negatives and films mostly turned to powder over the years. The piracy was much like the woes of the music companies whose CD sales have dropped recently due to piracy by third world copiers, file sharing and home copying of CDs. Edison 07:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

"Citation"
Someone filled the criticism section with "Citation needed". Just because something doesn't have a citation doesn't mean it's not true. I didn't include citations in the parts that I wrote because I can't remember how I found out the information. I saw a documentary about him with all of that information in it but I don't remember the name of it.

Edison: I didn't write anything about Topsy the elephant. I think that maybe someone used my account to write that because I was using a shared computer. I wrote about the execution but nothing else. I agree that the encyclopaedia should be neutral, so it should not say he "gladly" distriibuted the film and it definitely shouldn't say "video" because they weren't videos. However Thomas Edison really did kill Topsy, so don't remove that.

Huey45 23:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

If a fact about a notable historical person is true, a little research will often disclose a reference. "I saw it in a documentary or read it somewhere" falls somewhat short. Who killed the elephant as punishment for killing several men? Her owners. They had a doctor feed a lethal dose of cyanide to her before the electrocution. Before electrocution was proposed, her owners were planning to hang her, for the killings, and perhaps to attract an audience and get publilcity. Electrocution was proposed (probably by Edison) as a less gruesome and horrible execution method than hanging. There had been uneventful executions of humans by electrocution between the botched job on Kemmler and the Topsy electrocution. It was all over in seconds, probably quicker than with shooting. There is no indication Edison was there, or that he had anything against elephants, or that he was still trying to displace AC with DC electricity. Edison 23:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Edison
Edison is inventor of America. He invented the machine of 1980 kinds. It are record player, projector and automobile. The best invention was bulb in 1879. The world of lighting changed from the oil and gase lamp to the light. He build the first power house in New York. The world of electric power began to receive alternating current of an age. Thorough he particulared direct current, he defeated power company of alternating current. 04:40, 9 November 2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kanako yagasaki (talk • contribs)


 * Please sign your posts with 4 ~tildes. Edison 14:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

7th child
The article has said Thomas Edison was the 9th child, then the 7th of 9. The children of Samuel and Nancy Edison were:
 * Marion 1829
 * William 1832
 * Harriet 1833
 * Carlile 1836
 * Samuel III 1840
 * Eliza 1844
 * Thomas 1847. He is described as the last. These are in the biographies of Edison. If someone has evidence of later children, discuss it here.Eddy Kurentz 15:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

My source for child 8 (Richard Tildon Edison, born abt 1852) and child 9 (Edith Clarissa Edison, born abt 1854) was this genealogy page: http://www.fletcher-genealogy.net/familygroup.php?familyID=F0416&tree=tree1 These extra children also appear in Ancestry.com which has bugs in the database structure (X can be a child of Y, while Y is not a parent of X). Only the year of birth is given for Richard and Edith, not a birthdate in Ancestry.com which suggests they died young or were still born. Another problem is their mother Nancy Elliot would be 42 and 44 at the time of the births of Richard and Edith, respectively. Women tend to become infertile and have miscarriages after age 40. I accept the reversal. Greensburger 22:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Power nap
I removed the following from the main page pending a citation:"Edison also took what we today call "power naps." He used to sit in a chair holding a weight in each hand. Just before he would go into REM sleep his muscles would relax and he would drop the weights and the resulting noise would wake him up.  He thought that these shorter naps re-energized his body without him being groggy during the day." All his bios say he took naps, but I have not seen this particular claim about holding weights in his hands. He typically nappedlying down in a little alcove under the lab stairs at Menlo Park, so this would not have worked. Provide a reliable cite and it can go back in. The article is not for conjecture, and this may be a fine way of taking power naps, but it should not go into the article unsourced. Eddy Kurentz 19:56, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

There is vandalism today. See "Jason is awesome" at the end of Early Life section. I tried to edit it out but it isn't showing up on the edit page. I suggest a correction and some protection for this article. 218.103.2.246 02:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Continual vandalism
There is continual vandalism on this page some days. Do all of you think that we should request semi-protection for the page? Abelin  C A  usesobad  08:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * 7 instances in a typical day (yesterday) doesn't seem all that excessive to me. As long as the edits are being reverted reasonably timeously I would say it isn't necessary to semi-protect. --Guinnog 08:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

"timeously", you fuckwit.


 * For accuracy there're 10 even vandals particularly in 1/11 (yesterday). Don't you think it is too many for a page? Abelin  C A  usesobad  09:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd say it needs semi-protection. — Wackymacs 07:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that the Thomas Edison page needs some protection, at least limited to registered editors. Greensburger 16:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Anyone is free to request protection at Requests for Page Protection - be bold! The page has been semi-protected a number of times in the past during periods of heavier vandalism. It is generally not Wikipedia's policy to maintain protection for long periods of time unless absolutely necessary. This page seems to be pretty widely watchlisted, and in most cases, the vandalism has been cleaned up quickly, so I doubt an administrator is going to want to issue long-term protection. I could be wrong, though, so, by all means, list it at RFPP if you like. —Krellis 16:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

There is maybe one edit intended to improve the article for every 10 which are unallayed vandalism. To avoid throwing out the occasional good edit, and to avoid reverting to a vandalized version. please be sure to identify the version you revert to. Edison 01:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Lackawanna Railroad, lackasource addition
The section about the railroad in th Later Years section is 136 words, far too long for the slight importance on that effort in relation to his entire career, and lacks any source. I will remove it if no one finds a source in the next week. This article has been fleshed out pretty well, and claims such as this should not go in if the contributor cannot provide an inline reference. Or propose the addition here and say where you found it and others can format the reference for you. There are many scholarly biographies and many volumes of original papers, so there should not be speculative or unsourced material added. Edison 23:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Edison and Mackenzie
This article is in a mature enough state that we should only add well referenced material. I reverted an edit which said that Mr. Mackenzie gave Edison a job and taught him telegraphy, since the sources I checked indicate he just gave him lessons to improve his telegraphic speed, without it being an actual job. "Edison: A Biography" by Josephson just says that Edison lived with Mackenzie and paid for his own food, and that Mackenzie taught him telegraphy. It does not say the railroad or Mackenzie paid Edison, and absent that, it is mesleading to say he "gave him a job." If anything it was an unpaid apprenticeship. Neil Baldwin in "Edison: Inventing the century" says that "in gratitude Mackenzie offered to teach Tom telegraphy...In three months of intensive lessons he had mastered the skill.." and only then got a job somewhere else as a telegrapher. Edison 18:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

what was his religion?
It seems he was athiest, but I need to know for certain.

He was an atheist. He said these:
 * "I have never seen the slightest scientific proof of the religious ideas of heaven and hell, of future life for individuals, or of a personal God."
 * "I do not believe that any type of religion should ever be introduced into the public schools of the United States."
 * "So far as religion of the day is concerned, it is a damned fake... Religion is all bunk."


 * A citation for these claims would be superfantastic. That atheists' website doesn't cite any sources. Man. A citation to a book, or better yet, not just a book of any sort, but a real academic publication. That would be so sweet! 75.52.243.252 11:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * He was definitely not an atheist (see quote from letter I just added). But he seems to have rejected the immortality of the personal soul "or whatever you call it." He repeatedly equates God and the "supreme intelligence," which he equates with "nature" itself. His views seem fairly consistent with Einstein's, also a firm deist who nonetheless rejected an anthropomorphic God. But unlike Einstein, Edison seems to have been reluctant to be drawn into religious or metaphysical discussions. See Paul Israel, already cited. Ocanter 18:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Edison was not an atheist. Atheists don't believe in any kind of God - personal or impersonal. I don't think that Edison's views were fairly consistent with Einstein's. Einstein was an agnostic. See: List of agnostics. Edison was probably a deist. He didn't believe in a theistic God; however, he believe in some kind of supreme intelligence. And, he did say that 'Religion is all bunk' and he clearly didn't believe in a personal God. RS1900 13:18, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Edison did not believe in a god, in the religious sense (as those quotes and others display). Therefore that would either make him a variety of Pantheism or an atheist, because deists admit to a personal god just not the god found in the Bible, Qur'an, etc. Whatusername101 (talk) 16:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

"newsbutcher"??
What the heck is a "newsbutcher"? The article in the Tributes section says:

"The Port Huron Museums, in Port Huron, Michigan, restored the original depot that Thomas Edison worked out of as a young newsbutcher."

I can't find any such word in any dictionary or the Britianica. I think this must be completely bogus. Does anybody know about this?

Clemwang 19:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary gives as one definition of the noun "butcher:" a vendor, especially on trains or in theaters. In one of the works referenced in the main article, Matthew Josephson says on page 26 that Edison obtained a job as "candy butcher" on the train at age 12, selling food, sweets and newspapers.Neail Baldwin on page 28 calls him a "news butch." The U.S National Parks Service refers to him as a "news butcher." From the two surviving copies of the amateru newspaper he printed on the train, he certainly butchered spelling if not the news per se. Edison 00:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Lightbulb II - Revenge of the Disgruntled Foreigner!
Hey, as this doesn't seem to have been mentioned for roughly 9 months, I thought I would bring it up again. I really do believe that this page needs a mention of the fact that Edison did not at all invent the lightbulb. Yes yes, been there done that, but if I had a dollar for everytime I have heard something along the lines of "Thomas Edison, inventor of the lightbulb" I would definitely be a few thousand dollars richer. Much like Benjamin Franklin "discovered" electricity, it is a common American misconception and as a foreigner it bugs the ever-lovin' bejeezus out of me. I don't at all mean to take away from Edison's accomplishments, without whom we surely wouldn't have enjoyed over a hundred years of electric light, but it still needs to be addressed. Love, WookMuff 09:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, a couple of dozen experimenters tried to make incandescent lights, from Humphrey Davy around 1806 on through 1878, and none of them worked. They either gave off a dim useless glow, or they gave a bright glow for a few minutes then burned out. All they while they drew a large current due to their low resistance, and could not have been powered by a central power station without unreasonable huge copper conductors. Thomas Edison in late 1879 developed the carbon filament light bulb, with high resistance, a small radiating surface, a high vacuum, and a type of carbon which was homogeneous and did not quickly burn out. It was brighter than gas lights and cost a fraction as much per hour of operation. He was able to light Menlo Park New Jersey with hundreds of such bulbs, powered by an efficient dynamo of his own design. The bulbs lasted about 600 hours on average. No one before that had done anything remotely like that. Swan in Britain had come closest,in 1879, but his bulbs had low resistance and had to be powered by a local battery, making them impractical. They also had a very short life. Thomas Edison lit the Holburn Viaduct area of London and later lit downtown New York from Pearl Street generating station, providing light and power for businesses, and soon had tens of thousands of hil bulbs in service around the world, with other manufacturers selling illegal copies. Practicality and functionality are important aspects of invention. Tinkering with something or having a notion are not the be-all and end-all. Edison 14:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * None of which means that Edison invented the lightbulb. He didn't come up with even the basic concept, all he did was refine it. By your standards, Henry Ford invented the automobile. WookMuff 22:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Many sources qualify the invention as the "practical light bulb." Nothing before his development was ready for general use by the public, and previous efforts were just replications or incremental improvements on what Humphrey Davy demonstrated publicly before 1810, that a piece of conductor (usually platinum wire or carbon in a partial vacuum or inert gas) could be made to glow for a short time before it burned out, powered by huge current from a nearby battery. Edison 23:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Starr
Removed the following test from the Criticism section, since rootsweb is not a reliable source, and sincve the section cited does not say that the bulbs Edison made in 1880 were based on the Starr design, which had an unacceptable short lifetime and drew too much current for practical use. Murdoch, Joseph B. "Illumination Engineering: From Edison's Lamp To The Laser." Macmillan: New York, 1985. ISBN 0-02-948580-0 says (p4) that all electric incandescent lamps before Edison's in 1879 "did not prove practical, largely because of unreliability, short life, and excessive operating expense. All pre-Edison lamps "used thick filaments, of either platinum or carbon, which had low electrical resistance and required large currents to heat them to incandescence." Edison was the first to use a hairlike carbon filament with high resistance, in a high vacuum to prevent rapid oxidation,, with high resistance to make a it practical for use in a distribution system. The removed section said "Edison stood to make significantly more money by manufacturing and selling a light bulb that he could patent rather than licensing it. For example, in 1880 Edison's company had produced 130,000 handmade lamps in the 1850s vision of John Wellington Starr but he sold them as Edison lamps." It is misleading to claim tht the lamps were "in the 1850s vision of Starr" when Starr was just one of the scores of inventors of unusable and impractical lamps dating back to Davy in 1802.  Edison 17:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: U.S. Patent #223898 image
I'm interested in utilizing images from expired (1859, 1889, 1892, 1906) U. S. Patents, and noticed that this article includes an image from Edison's patent. Could you please explain how this was uploaded and how it fits within the Wikipedia criteria for public domain items? Thanks! --BFDhD 15:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to take a stab at this by noting that anything published before 1923 is regarded as PD in the USA.69.149.77.185 17:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)robcat2075

uninhibitally
I couldn't make sense of this phrase in the Criticism section, "and a commercially and uninhibitally but still useful lifetime". I am particularly unfamiliar with the word "uninhibitally", but I can't make the phrase hang together even with likely substitutions (like "uninhibitedly") or any other word I can think of. Metamusing 02:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Georges Méliès
The criticism section has copied and pasted (violating GFDL) some POV and poorly sourced material from the articles on the film maker Méliès and his film A Trip to the Moon / Le Voyage dans la Lune (1902). As written, it gives undue weight by implying that Edison copying and exhibiting the Méliès film was illegal, was not a common practice at the time, and that pirating of the film by Edison led directly to Méliès going bankrupt: "This bankrupted Méliès." The article this was copied from A Trip to the Moon cites a website created and written by Tim Dirks, which says the film was duplicated by Edison's technicians and exhibited in the U.S., but it also says "an illegal duplicate of the film was available in the USA from Siegmund Lubin under the title A Trip to Mars." says Sigmund Lubin "re-made any appealing title from other companies, producing among others versions of The Great Train Robbery, Personal, and Uncle Tom's Cabin, and duped for his own sale many films of Edison, Méliès, Pathé, and others, advertising that his stock included any film made anywhere in the world." Thus undue weight is given in the criticism to Edison's part of the piracy. Forum.physorg.com says "Actually Melies FIRM went bankrupt 11 years and 38 films later, so it clearly wasn't due to the showing in NY of this somewhat silly 8 minute film." It also says that copying movies in the US was legal at that time:""Edison's production activities were temporarily disrupted when Lubin began to dupe the company's principal subjects, thereby challenging its method of copyrighting films. Edison sought legal protection during 1902-03 but lost in the courts. Unable to protect his original films, he stopped all film production for several months early in 1903. Meanwhile, Lubin continued to produce his own films and to copy the work of rivals, a strategy evident in his comprehensive catalog of January 1903".. "Faced with legal uncertainty, American producers preferred to dupe the popular films of European filmmakers rather than invest extensively in their own productions. Lubin, Selig, and Edison catalogs from 1903-04 listed many dupes of English and French productions and gave particular prominence to Méliès films such as BLUEBEARD and A TRIP TO THE MOON." As for  Méliès' eventual bankruptcy, he hung on for decades, and his outmoded filming methods had more to do with it than one pirated film. "Adventures in Cybersound" at  says "Méliès made over 500 films, but his most famous, Voyage dans la lune, Le (1902) (Voyage to the Moon) made him a fortune. Still, Méliès, trained in classic eighteenth century theater, conceived all of his films in terms of fully played-out scenes. Unable to keep up with the changing industry, the end of his life was wrought with poverty, yet his films would be monumental stepping stones for great auteurs such as D.W. Griffith."

This little section should be cleaned up, referenced to reliable sources, (better than Dirks' site, and better than various blogs, such as scholarly history books and articles in peer reviewed journals and incorporated into the section of the article about motion pictures, as well as the 2 related articles. Edison 20:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)