Talk:Thomas Edison/Archive 6

Edison and the invention of light bulb
To say that: "Edison did not invent the first electric light bulb, but instead invented the first commercially practical incandescent light." is a non sense. You cannot have several inventors for one item. The inventor is the one who made the first one, commercially practical or not. In the case of the bulb the inventor is a French inventor de La Rue in 1820. On this point John H. Lienhard, Professor Emeritus of Mechanical Engineering and History at the University of Houston cannot be more positive in his paper: "Electric light before Edison" http://www.uh.edu/engines/epi1330.htm when he says:"Edison's contribution to electric lighting wasn't its invention, but its development." Because if we agree that invented the first commercially practical light bulb, we must also agree that he never invented the first commercially practical phonograph, as his first one, the tinfoil phonograph, was not commercially practical and, in this case, we must claim that Alexander Graham Bell invented the first commercially practical phonograph as it is him and his research team that have patented the wax recording, that permits to the Edison phonograph to be commercially practical. This is why I believe that the sentense: "Edison did not invent the first electric light bulb, but instead invented the first commercially practical incandescent light." must be replaced by this one: "Edison did not invent the first electric light bulb, but instead patented the first commercially practical incandescent light." as everybody knows that a patent (normally an improvement) is not an invention in itself. http://app.onlinephotofiler.com/images/A_5/2/1/0/50125/The_SoundBox01_17135.jpg?v=f90b Jean-Paul Agnard jean-paul.agnard@sympatico.ca —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.159.182.59 (talk) 19:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The invention of a light bulb by de la Rue (or de la Rive in other sources) is not well documented. The article you reference shows a lack of understanding of what is required to be a "successful electric lamp." The claimed 1820 lamp was just a demonstration that a strip of platinum will glow when electric current is passed through it. No successful lamp used a platinum filament, because it is very expensive and there is a very slight difference between the current to get a bright light and the slighty greater current which makes it burn out. It was just a replication of demonstrations by experimenters in the 1770's such as Joseph Priestley with a Leyden jar, and many more after 1800 with Voltaic batteries, that current could make a piece of wire glow before it burned out, so it was not a unique earthshaking "invention," nor could it have been used to light homes or businesses, because of the short service life of a few hours, the huge cost  for platinum, and the low resistance, making it impractical. Also note that Warren De la Rue, presumably the "de la Rue" in question was only 5 years old in 1820, demonstrating the quality of scholarship in the article cited. The de la Rue/de la Rive demonstration in the 1820's or 1840's has not been documented, that I have been able to find, by publication in a scientific journal or the general press at the time of said demonstration. Many people made strips of platinum glow via batteries. That did not constitute an incandescent electric light that did more than glow a few hours at huge cost per hour and low efficiency.The scientific world in 1880 considered Edison's lamp a dramatic breakthrough, and before its introduction leading scientists said that earlier work had not been a success, and that Edison was pursuing a "wil o the wisp" in trying to "subdivide the electric light." The bellief was that an incandescent light bulb would only function for a few hours, and inefficiently. As for the phonograph, Edison's invention was considered a success by Scientific American and was exhibited worldwide in the year of its invention. It would record and playback music and voice intelligibly such that the scientific world considered it a success, and it was sold commercially. That is far more than could be said for a phantom 1820 de la Rue platinum burner. Edison (talk) 14:52, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

link to personal opinion
I removed the link to Hart's personal opinion about Edison's "rank". Then User:Edison reverted my edit, saying: It was a published book, not just someone's "personal opinion." Well, it's a personal opinion in a published book. Nothing is easier than publishing a book. Being on Hart's questionable list certainly is not an "award" or "honor", as the section title indicates. In fact, it is more like the opposite of an honor to those who think Edison should rank higher. But I won't revert your edit this time since in this particular case a few alternative (and less personal) lists by other US sources (LIFE and the TV series) are mentioned as well. Gimmemoretime (talk) 15:14, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually it is difficult to get a published book from an established publisher (as opposed to vanity press) and that's why such books tend to be accepted as reliable sources. Rather than going to every article linked to this book and delinking, please take your concern about it to the Reliable sources/Noticeboard and gain a consensus. If some recognized authority has a book from a legitimate publisher and gives some ranking, it should not be unilaterally delinked as "personal opinion" as if it were a Wikipedia editor making up the ranking, or as if it were from a personal blog. Everything published is the personal opinion of the author or authors, or those creating the text, ultimately. Edison (talk) 19:57, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Cruelty to Animals & the Views on politics, religion and metaphysics section
It has a quote from him about the high morality of total non-violence, but it doesn't specifically mention animals, rather, "living beings" which I would take to mean other humans, and a statement of pacifist philosophy. Additionally he famously executed an elephant to display the danger of AC current. Doesn't this somewhat degrade the idea that he was morally opposed to animal cruelty? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.29.124.11 (talk) 20:32, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The "War of the currents" was in the 1880's. Edison abandoned the electric power business thereafter. Topsy (elephant) killed her third human in 1903 and the owners wanted her put to death. There was no longer an ongoing "war of the currents," and the killing was done by electrocution rather than shooting or hanging, because electrocution was at that time considered the most humane form of killing. No one presumed that the killing of an elephant by the means which had been used for many condemned murderers would somehow cause cities to abandon AC and switch to DC. He was not present at the execution, although employees of either the local electric company or his lab were there, and an Edison film crew made a movie of it as they did most events that took place which were sensational enough to sell a short film to exhibitors. Edison (talk) 14:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The fact-box says Edison was a Deist. According to the Deist article in Wikipedia, a Deist believes a supreme, intelligent being created the universe. But Edison did not think that. He considered "nature" to be a kind of god. He never suggested that nature was an intelligent being. I'm not sure what Edison was, but he definitely was not a "Deist". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.240.61.2 (talk) 01:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Link Error
The link to Greenfield Village underneath the workshop image should point to Greenfield Village in Michigan, not Texas.
 * The proper link redirects to an unrelated article, The Henry Ford, so I have simply removed the link altogether.  fetch  comms  ☛ 00:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The Iron Shovel?
Could we get a citation on his father being known as the Iron Shovel? It seems pretty improbably, and google reveals only wiki mirrors and things that likely are referencing this page. mkehrt (talk) 00:01, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Date of filling
In Patent 223898 the date "1st day of November, A.D., 1879" (page 3, at the end) is printed as signing day, whereas in the current article, the "November 4, 1879" is claimed to be the filed date. Is there a difference between signing and filed date? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.133.5.252 (talk) 12:10, 13 February 2010 (UTC) make some plays about him —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.20.204.174 (talk) 22:39, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Didn't Edison have a concrete house made?
Didn't Thmos Alva Edison construct giant molds for a concret house? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paxmoi (talk • contribs) 05:45, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Paxmoi, yes Edison certainly did design and produce cast concrete homes, as can be seen in this article, THOMAS EDISON’S CONCRETE HOUSES, in Invention & Technology magazine. Best: HarryZilber (talk) 01:38, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Some were built, complete with molded picture frames, but the molds were very expensive and required a high level of skill and high labor cost to use, and the concrete houses were not a commercial success. Edison (talk) 03:36, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Prolific Inventor is highly questionable if not simply a falsehood
Saying Edison was a 'prolific inventor' is akin to say Bill Gates is a 'prolific programmer'. He was a simply a businessman adept at acquiring intellectual property.

Further, the attempt to credit the light-bulb to Edison with the 'practical' qualifier is absurd. Edison held a patent for the screw end-cap and base for electric light-bulbs. When Tesla was awarded the contract to light the World Fair, Edison refused to license the screw-cap technology to Tesla. Tesla, painfully aware of Edison's propensity to pursue profit over public welfare, developed his own bulbs and method for delivering the AC electric current to power the bulbs. Suffice to say that his contract to light the World Fair was met (if not exceeded) with ease.

Edison was merely a prolific collector of intellectual property. Most of it derivative to boot. How about we list Edison's patents so readers can determine their value in the scheme of progressing technology?

00:04, 12 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jason.Singer (talk • contribs)


 * Is Edison "the" inventor of the light bulb, or merely the most famous improver of it?
 * In fact, Thomas Edison not only did not invent the lightbulb, he did not invent many of the things attributed to him. His shrewd business skills enabled him to steal, improve, and patent many ideas before their original inventors were able to. He was, in addition, a ruthless man who attempted to discredit other inventors in order to gain popularity for his own. Prior to Edison’s patent for the electric lightbulb in 1880, electric lights had already been invented. In 1840, British Astronomer and Chemist, Warren de la Rue, enclosed a platinum coil in a vacuum tube and passed an electric current through it, thus creating the world’s first light bulb – a full 40 years before Edison.

The quote above doesn't cite its sources, but maybe another WP contributor can help me dig up some info about this. --Uncle Ed (talk) 14:22, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * (afterthought) Well, the IEEE history website has this to say:
 * The warm glow of the light bulb is the part of today’s electric lighting system that we know best. Thomas Edison is often said to have invented the light bulb, but his bulb was not a completely original idea. In fact, the principle of electric incandescent lighting (making a wire glow by sending electricity through) had been around since at least 1802, when Englishman Humphry Davy demonstrated it. In 1820 another English inventor, Warren De la Rue, used a platinum filament inside a glass bulb, an idea Edison would later try but reject. Early Light Bulbs


 * (cut from article)
 * Edison allegedly bought light bulb U.S. patent 181,613 of Henry Woodward that was issued August 29, 1876, and obtained an exclusive license to Woodward's Canadian patent. These patents covered a carbon rod in a nitrogen filled glass cylinder, and differed substantially from the first commercially practical bulb invented by Edison.


 * What I'm interested in here is not his legal claims, since any patents expired over a century ago. I'm more interested in the "credit" bestowed upon him as the or an inventor of the light bulb. Let's get this right, so schoolkids know how much are the relative contributions of individual initiative and "collaboration". --Uncle Ed (talk) 15:35, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * There's an even more comprehensive timeline here. --Uncle Ed (talk) 15:44, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

anhdgfyewt —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.247.52.152 (talk) 22:46, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Interestingly, when Edison in the late 1870's announced he was working on an incandescent light bulb, the world's leading scientists said that he was wasting his time, since it was impossible to devise one. If any earlier experimenter had built a light bulb which provided light for more than one evening, these experts would have said "So what? De la Rue (or de la Rive in other accounts) or Sawyer, or the 2 Canadians, or someone else, has already invented the light bulb." In fact, the earlier bulbs simply DID NOT WORK! The filament oxidized in a few hours, the glass became dark, and it burned out. Open air platinum burned out, expensively, in a very few hours. Carbon rods burned and smoked up the globe. Swan and Edison were the first to make practical filament and vacuum light bulbs. In the end, the Edison and Swan patents won in court. Edison (talk) 03:49, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Glad you mentioned Swan, as he is usually credited with the invention of the lightbulb (and Edison entered commercial arrangements with him to licence the technology - Ediswan). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.6.35.235 (talk) 20:34, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Edison's Tattoo?
I read on a few sites that he had 5 markings on his forearm but there is no mention of this in the article. Is it something that should be added? Viskadaik (talk) 11:32, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


 * It seems trivial (non-notable) to me. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 16:45, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


 * It is well documented that he had on his left forearm a tattoo of five dots arranged like the dots on a die. . It was noted on an insurance policy March 29, 1911, but with no indication of its age or meaning. There is no indication he was tattooed with his own machine, since any simple puncture of the skin could have been used to introduce pigment and create the simple tattoo. He invented a lightweight "electric pen" machine in 1875, with a motor moving a needle up for perforating mimeograph masters, which is similar to later tattoo machines. The pen could make perforations 1/3 mm deep 9000 times per minute.  . An electric tattoo pen, based on Edison's device, was patented by Sam O'Reilly in 1891 . Before the electric pen, tattooing was a very slow process by hand perforations. If there is a category of "Tattooed persons" Edison could be put in it, or could be categorized as related to tattooing. Reliable sources indicate that later tattooing pens derive from Edison's electric pen,,   , and his own tattoo could be mentioned in connection to that or to the mimeograph. Most modern pens are simpler and based on a buzzer or doorbell , . Edison (talk) 14:52, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Edison didn't create the lightbulb
I've heard for many years from many people I've known that Edison stole the designs of the electric lightbulb from Nikola Tesla. Has anybody ever taken this seriously other than me. If so, maybe should include a section on it. - It&#39;s for the Lutz (talk) 21:09, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Neither did Tesla create the electric light bulb or the light bulb at all the English did109.154.0.180 (talk) 11:34, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

It should be noted that Edison didn't invent the motion picture camera as is popularly believed.
WIlliam Friese-Greene from England invented the motion picture camera. "On June 21, 1889, Friese-Greene was issued patent no. 10131 for his 'chronophotographic' camera." He sent Edison a letter about it and it was in published trade magazines as well.99.177.118.220 (talk) 03:42, 18 November 2010 (UTC)AD source   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Friese-Greene

Edisons kinetiscope wasn't invented until 189299.177.118.220 (talk) 03:42, 18 November 2010 (UTC)AD source   http://edison.rutgers.edu/pictures.htm  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.177.118.220 (talk) 05:00, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

wrong the Lumiere Brothers were the ones to make a motion picture camera —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.158.240.230 (talk) 19:28, 10 November 2010 (UTC) where is the source for this comment, you have no proof so why add it when I clearly listed sources for my statements99.177.118.220 (talk) 03:42, 18 November 2010 (UTC)AD


 * To continue the point: Edison also stole the Nickel-iron battery (experimented with 2 years earlier by the Swede Waldemar Jungner as an alternative to his Nickel Cadmium - and found to be inferior to the Nickel Cadmium).


 * Edison also stole the phonograph which was based on a machine by the Frenchman Leon Schott. In fact, most of the features that appeared in the final patent for the phonograph were in fact refinements to the original by one Edward Guilliard - something that was to land Edison in the patent courts for the next 26 years.

Yes, sorry I don't have a source for this but I saw recently somewhere he actually got to look at the SChott patent in the patent office.99.177.118.220 (talk) 03:42, 18 November 2010 (UTC)AD


 * The only people who got rich out of Edison's 'inventions' were, as ever, the lawyers. 86.178.181.182 (talk) 14:05, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

AC? DC?
There is a serious error here in this article. it says that Thomas Edison was a proponent of DC electricity. this is not true. it was Tesla who favored DC. Dc drops in power over a few short miles, and that is the reason why Tesla never became famous because it was too dangerous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.158.240.230 (talk) 19:35, 10 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Wow. The comment above is totally incorrect re: Tesla's and Edison's positions. This is well documented and correctly reflected in the article. B Pete (talk) 20:28, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Thomas was born in mexico
Thomas was born in mexico In the state of Zacatecas in a town called Sombrerete. http://aztlanjournal.metapress.com/openurl.asp?genre=article&issn=0005-2604&volume=9&issue=1&spage=151 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.152.159.163 (talk) 03:36, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Absolute nonsense. Edison (talk) 04:35, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Speaking from the grave?
The quote attributed to Edison under his picture indicates a date of 1932, yet the date of death is listed as 1931. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.44.92.46 (talk) 20:38, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Pedophile ?
Isn't the U.S. age of consent 18 ? (Although, isn't it 14 in Texas ?) So, as he married a 16 year old woman, by present day definitions he is a pedophile ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.30.192.25 (talk) 13:52, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

"Isn't the U.S. age of consent 18?" Hey IDIOT, this was the NINETEENTH CENTURY!!! Thoughout the western world, females marrying at the age of 16 were common. Never raising as much as an eyebrow from the emerging Victoian era. Actually, a young girl marrying a man who was middle-aged and still in the prime of life was applauded AND encouraged, as well as her parents for matching her with any man who had established means. What was frowned upon at that time (and still very-much today,)was if the man were eighteen to her, say sixteen, or both were the same teen age (Though today, as was true then, a parent could get a waiver, and consent to the union). A young marriage was mightily discouraged by society AND the girl's parents in that bygone era, as they saw "young love" as impetuous, irrational, and especially IMMATURE. Unless the man was shown to be of more than sufficient means, maturity and responsibility; that he came from a respected family, the whole idea was nixed. Also, remember that arranged marriages were still quite common in turn-of-the-century America. (And too, fathers were eager to get their daughters "married off" as soon as possible, so they wouldn't get "radical" ideas of "independence" floating in their heads.) Not like the "mail-order brides" of the rambling Old West! (Actually, would it surprise you that arranged unions are still widely carried out today accross every interested section and spectrum of society in the West. It's just more informal, as the female ESPECIALLY is tasked by parents and relatives to choose a mate within the liking of the parents, and often-times, relatives. "Gotta please Mom and Dad, my grandparents AND priest, ya know?" You should also study more about Edison's life before making moronic and scurrilous accusations. If you did delve further, you would find that Edison's second marriage was more a "politcal" arrangement than anything else, as little Mina was a neice of Thomas Alva's principal enemy and competitor JUPITER PIERPONT MORGAN. Struggling as the latter was to keep his floundering gas-light industry afloat against the inevitability of the electric street lamp. So, the marrige was a very strategically diabolic "investment" on Morgan's part to overtake Edison' business, which eventually happened. (We are reminded that Morgan a a ROBBER BARON: This is what they do.)It is strange that you'd call Alva Edison a pedophile. Why, unless you seek to marr his reputation? |talk]]) 03:44, 4 February 2011 (UTC)Veryverser
 * I've done some genealogical research, and the 19th century marriage records for a woman under 21 usually included consent of her parent or guardian. Did that happen in this case, when he was 24 and she was 16? If consent was lacking, in some cases the marriage occurred on the woman's 21st birthday. Edison (talk) 02:57, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

We are talking SOCIAL CONVENTIONS here, of course. Naturally long before the 1960sA.D. "women's liberation", all females needed their parents or guardian(s)'s consent, whether they were co-habitating with them, or the women were apart from them and\or had indepenent means. This was common all over the world, with this tradition being broken, beginingin in North America by enforced emigration(for example)of Irish and other European refugees in the nineteenth, and then again in the early twentieth centuries. Even women who were twenty-one years old in the turn-of-the nineteenth, and early twentieth century's "middle-class" strata were required to seek a respectable, well-heeled sponsor, to give consent to a bethrotal if these females ever were to hope to enter what was then regarded as "respectable" society". This all seemed to chagge in America after World War I, as there seemed to have been a definite "cultural shift", throwing-off those old traditions of a previous generation and epoch. Edison's age difference is a non-issue. Even in most parts of Asia  and Europe today, age in a marriage of an older man to a (well, sometimes much) younger woman is revered. Here, in the States, various wealthly and powerful men, among them old Hollywood and media types flaunt their marriage to virtual child-brides(Woody Allen, Rupert Murdock as obvious examples. Curious-wouldn't you agree-that in both cases cited, these men chose YOUNG, ORIENTAL WOMEN, rather than western ones for their "sunset years"). In Alva Edison's case, this was sort of a "wirlwind romance" manipulated by the girl's uncle, as I cited above, to get at Edison and control of his company. Think Napolean Bonaparte's divorce of Josephine to marry a Hapsburgh princess, and the world-shattering events that ensued from such a "political" union. Special:Contributions/ (talk) 08:45, 7 February 2011 (UTC)Veryverser