Talk:Thomas Edison/Archive 7

Could we add a simple sentance to Places named for Edison?
I grew up in Sacramento, California, and my elementary school was named after Thomas Edison...

I don't believe it would burden or discredit this article to add a simple "...as well as numerous elementary schools throughout the United States" to the end of the places that are named after him.

I know it's trivial to most people... but it's still relevant. if you would like a reference, just search Google, Yahoo, or MSN maps for "Thomas Edison Elementary" and see what pops up.

I appreciate you considering my inconsequential request regarding this article. Cheers, Danny

Afterfreeze (talk) 08:10, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Droblag, 11 February 2011
edit semi-protected

I think it is important to establish and verify exactly what Edison invented. For example Swan was selling light bulbs in UK at least eight years before Edison took up the idea. While the current article hints that Edison didn't actually invent the light bulb it obfuscates the issue. Until the facts are verified by someone more learned than I, I suggest the reference is omitted.

Droblag (talk) 09:09, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: I'm not sure what you want changed. I just read the article and it seems clear that Swan was selling light bulbs before Edison, but that Edison made longer-lasting bulbs. -Atmoz (talk) 21:15, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Date formats
Another editor has questioned the edit I made here, in which I made the date formats consistent per WP:MOSNUM on a MDY basis, as well as other minor edits. Does anyone else have an issue with this edit? --John (talk) 00:24, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The "question" is more of an issue with the Manual of style for dates. You have not kept to the MOS, that's all. You changed the format of access dates and archive dates that were specifically in accord with MOS:DATEUNIFY.  You have stated that because the subject is an American, the date formats should be changed to the American style.  The lede of the MOS is very specific about the bias of such a change.  You have not kept with the MOS, a guideline that should be stuck to unless an editor has a very good reason not to.  So either I'm wrong, and I would hope and expect you to point out the particular place in the MOS that tells me I'm wrong, or I'm correct and the dates should be converted back to their original formats.  &mdash;  Paine Ellsworth  (  C LIMAX  )  23:46, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * PS. You also changed other formatting such as changing "favourite" to "favorite", strictly against the MOS (see MOS:ENGVAR). The creator of and first contributors to this article were obviously versed in British or British-type formatting, and the MOS is clear about not making arbitrary conversions.  If you can raise a consensus for change, then that would be grounds for format-change consideration.
 * You're wrong. Reading WP:STRONGNAT may help you to see where you are mistaken. Thanks for caring about these issues. --John (talk) 15:40, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * STRONGNAT does not override the lede of the MOS. STRONGNAT says that articles should be formatted using national ties, for example, when an article is first created.  However, when an article has already been created using one particular format, as this article was, then the Arbitration Committee ruled in February 2006 that "Wikipedia does not mandate styles in many different areas; these include (but are not limited to) American vs. British spelling, date formats, and citation style. Where Wikipedia does not mandate a specific style, editors should not attempt to convert Wikipedia to their own preferred style, nor should they edit articles for the sole purpose of converting them to their preferred style, or removing examples of, or references to, styles which they dislike."  This represents the present community consensus.  &mdash;  Paine Ellsworth  (  C LIMAX  )  08:46, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you should read the section again and try to understand it better. A quick look here will show the use of US-style dates and "movie" (an AmEng term, as befits the US subject) as long ago as 2002. On the contrary, it is your edits which have been in contravention of MoS. Please self-revert. --John (talk) 08:38, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Your obviously monumental search in the archives actually gave me pause. I think it's time for us to realize that we are both very avid about this article and this issue. John, I went back through the citations and did find some inconsistencies. Some of these new edits might even be congruent with your previous edits. So it appears that our main disagreement is on the format of the various access archival dates that are YYYY-MM-DD. The MOS, specifically DATEUNIFY, gives us guidance and clarity on these as follows:


 * Access and archive dates in references should be in either the reference format, or YYYY-MM-DD for conciseness
 * In the same article, do
 * Jones, J. (20 Sep 2008) ... Retrieved 5 Feb 2009.
 * or
 * Jones, J. (20 Sep 2008) ... Retrieved 2009-02-05.
 * but not
 * Jones, J. (20 Sep 2008) ... Retrieved February 5, 2009.

These requirements apply to dates in general prose and reference citations, but not to dates in quotations or titles.

I sincerely hope that those recent edits improved this article to your satisfaction. &mdash; Paine Ellsworth  (  C LIMAX  )  11:12, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

American Myth
It saddens me to see that this article perpetuates the myth of Edison, instead of revealing the truth. That there is no mention of the fraudulent patent practices that led to the revocation of a number of his patents and the controversy associated with many of the most famous inventions allegedly developed by Edison, can only lead me to believe that the people contributing and editing this article are content to disseminate the feel good, hero mythology of Edison over the less complimentary, but truthful, history. The court cases and patent reassignments, revocations and annulments are all in the public record yet some would ignore these so that they may set Edison on the pedestal of American Idols. Ixionrex (talk) 16:13, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * So, fix it. Provide some reliable sources putting forward your position, and then put it in the appropriate place or places in the article. You'll need to wait a few days until you can edit the article -- it's been the subject of a lot of vandalism, so we have it semi-protected. --jpgordon:==( o ) 16:23, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


 * If you read a bit about inventions in the 19th century you will be "saddened" by learning that Morse knew practically nothing about electricity and that he took credit for the work of others on the telegraph, ditto for Bell on the telephone. What "fraudulent patent practices" led to the "revocation" of which of Edison's patents? What "public record?" What blog are you getting these insights from? Edison (talk) 15:49, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Bell specifically acknowledged that he was one of thousands who worked on the telephone. Collect (talk) 15:53, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Bell was not so generous in patent litigation, and he did not acknowledge the priority of Elisha Gray for critical developments. Edison (talk) 16:37, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

As A Telegrapher
Could someone add two interesting points from when he was working in Statford. The first was that he invented a signalling device. This sent a signal to his boss to prove that he was at his station. This allowed Edison to sleep on the job at night and then work on his projects during the day. His boss became suspicious becauses Edison's signals were too regular. Edison also fled Stratford and returned to Port Huron (to avoid being fired) after he almost caused the collision of two trains.

These are well known in Statford to this day, and here is a reference. http://books.google.ca/books?id=k5GuTfJbKYAC&pg=PA28&lpg=PA28&dq=edison+fired+stratford&source=bl&ots=vzNCtlZK4c&sig=B-BoP46XslfRpwo5DueNzU7CiKc&hl=en&ei=zXhVTb3CJYH7lwfv2dTxBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBUQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=edison%20fired%20stratford&f=false —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.93.115.5 (talk) 18:05, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


 * There are hundreds of similar fond anecdotes, many of which were created years after the supposed events with no documentary evidence to support them. Sending a signal by clockwork in that era would likely not have fooled anyone, since the clockwork could not respond to signals from other operators on the line, and since it might have trod upon signals from another operator. Telegraphy was interactive. I have not seen in telegraphy books from that time any indication that the operator was required to send out a simple signal that a clockwork could have duplicated. Edison (talk) 16:44, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Brit. vs. Amer.
The reversion of "favorite" back to "favourite" was based on WP:ENGVAR, however I can see now that it was indeed incorrect. Even the same paragraph had that word again used for Edison's "favorite stars". &mdash; Paine Ellsworth  (  C LIMAX  )  22:46, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * No big deal; sorry if my edit summary was a bit blunt. Alexius  Horatius  23:05, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Please don't be sorry. A "blunt" edit summary is far better than no edit summary!>)  &mdash;  Paine Ellsworth  (  C LIMAX  )  23:13, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Response to Earlier Immorality Accusation
'''This is inresponse to a cowardly "unsigned" who suggested that Thomas Alva was a pedophile. The entire section was deleted. I think the response is worth keeping as it delves into the intrigue in Edison's life.''' "Isn't the U.S. age of consent 18?"-(as "unsigned" stated). 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

'''Following this clarification, perhaps it was the article's author who attempted to resolve this by offering the results of his "genelogical study" of what was conventional in such relationships in that period that Edison lived. This I felt was inadequate, so I countered with...'''

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 Bonafart'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)Veryverse

'''There certainly should be a more involved section about Edison's war with Jupiter Pierpont Morgan and the struggle for industrial and technilogical progress. I do declare, the way these two men were at it, one would imagine reading from Mark Twain's "A Conneticut Yankee in King Arthurs's Court"; which is a great and perrenial classic, horribly underrated!''' --24.46.103.28 (talk) 02:00, 14 May 2011 (UTC)Veryverser

Connection to Hollywood
Edison tried to patent sprocket holes at the edge of film-reel and demanded money for it. Apparently he hired goons who'd go round New York and destroy camera equipment of film makers who wont pay. This was one of the reasons (among others, New York winter is one of them) why film makers left New York and established a new base in California.

Source: Paul Merton's documentary on the birth of Hollywood. Broadcast May 27, 2011 on BBC2. Source2: Mcoctopus (talk) 13:52, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds like hokum. A patent had nothing to do with "sending goons around." For patent infringement, they sent lawyers around. Edison (talk) 20:19, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Mistakes
MISTAKE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Did he become deaf because of ear infections or because of being struck on the ears by a train conductor? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.41.91.92 (talk • contribs)


 * The article provides an answer to your question, in the "Early life" section. He had ear infections, then he was struck on the ear by a train conductor, which made it worse. It also got progressively worse as he grew old. Edison (talk) 21:22, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I am the same person who added the mistakes section and Humphrey Davy invented the light bulb. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.41.91.92 (talk) 17:29, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * So far, you are 0 for 2, IP82. That's okay, because we all make "mistakes".  Sir Humphry Davy certainly did a lot of good things and is remembered for inventing the Davy lamp, which saved countless lives.  However, that was still a flame lamp that used oil, not an electric light bulb like Edison invented.  The two are a generation apart and cannot be equated with each other.  Please try to remember to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). –  Paine Ellsworth  (  C LIMAX  )  23:23, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually Humphrey Davy did invent an electric lamp. But it was the electric carbon arc lamp that he invented, not a light bulb in the context of the discussion. 86.177.27.130 (talk) 08:21, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Researchers as far back as Joseph Priestley in 1767, and Volta in 1800 had shown that current could make a wire glow, the essence of an incandescent lamp. Priestley used a bank of Leyden jars, and Volta used an electrochemical battery. A researcher named Children circa 1815 made a powerful (high current low voltage ) battery which could make a piece of iron wire or platinum wire the size of a coat hanger white hot (until it melted). Davy built a powerful (high voltage, fairly high current) battery which could produce an arc light in the early 1800's. Note that when the 2 carbon electrodes were touched together, the first thing that happened was that they glowed white hot (incandescent light), before they were separated a bit and the electric arc flashed white-hot between them. Davy also made many types of wire glow incandescently until they melted. Researchers from 1810 until the successful incandescent lamps of Swan and Edison in the late 1870's were just basically replicating the work of those pioneers. They could make a bit of wire or carbon glow, but it burned out in a few hours, and was totally impractical as a light source. Edison and Swan were the first in the world to make a practical incandescent lamp, which worked for hundreds of hours (at least the Edison lamps of the early 1880s did). If someone put carbon or wire inside glass, and it burned out in a couple of hours, it was not a big improvement on the demonstrations of Davy, Children, Volta et al of the first 15 years of the 19th century.  Edison (talk) 20:33, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

(I moved the following block of text - it had been inserted into one of the conversations above.) Mark Shaw (talk) 21:24, 16 June 2011 (UTC) Amazingly, there was no mention of Edison's dyslexia troughout the entire article! It would do well to reinforce this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.56.12.44 (talk) 20:44, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Thomas Edison and the Association of Edison Illuminating Companies
There is no mention of The Association of Edison Illuminating Companies (AEIC) on the Wikipedia page for Thomas Edison. It may be interesting to some to know that AEIC is one of the oldest associations in the electric energy industry (2011 is it's 127th year). AEIC was organized in 1885 by Thomas Edison and is an association of investor-owned utilities in the United States as well as international. AEIC provides information exchange for solutions to industry problems and publishes cable specifications and load research manuals. The strength of the Association is it's technical committees,Power Generation, Load Research, Electric Power Apparatus, Power Delivery, Meter & Service and Cable Engineering. AEIC Staff — Preceding unsigned comment added by AEIC Staff (talk • contribs) 19:08, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

What about Lewis Latimer?
What about Lewis Latimer? If you're going to talk about the light bulb, you can't simply talk about Thomas Edison and Joseph swan. Even when Edison took the reins of the light bulb, it was still extremely inefficient and too expensive for most people. The carbon wire filament, (generally made of bamboo, paper or thread) inside the bulb burned out quickly causing a need for constant replacement (generally after only a few days). Latimer, a Black inventor and draftsman, developed a way of enclosing the filament in a small cardboard envelope thus preventing the carbon filament from breaking. This gave the light bulb a much longer life making it less expensive and more efficient. As a result of Latimer's invention, electric lighting could now be installed within most homes and throughout most streets. To conclude, even though it's Edison's birthday, it's also Black History Month so give credit where credit is due. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drewrasta (talk • contribs) 13:56, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Incandescent light bulb provides an extensive history, including the contributions of Lewis Latimer. --jpgordon:==( o ) 15:52, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I heartily agree because if it wasn't for Mr. Latimer we wouldn't be able to harvest watermelon at night!
 * Edison's bamboo filament in fact did not burn out too quickly to be commercially successful. This 1882 book says that the Edison bulb with a bamboo filament, the technology used before Swan's or Latimer's squirted filament, "had an average lifetime of 600 hours," and "double this is often obtained." By 1883 the bamboo filament 60 watt 16 candlepower bulb had a lifetime of 1000 hours at normal current, per this 1884 book. Typical usage was about 5 hours per evening, so a bulb would have lasted 120 days or more. It has been well known since the 1880s that the lifetime varies with the applied voltage, and thus with the efficacy (lumens per watt). A balance was struck so that the most economically advantageous design was used. The whole point is that Edison's carbon filament bulb, with a very high vacuum, and lead-in wires sealed in glass, had a long enough lifetime to be economically superior to gaslights. The incandescent lights of earlier experimenters (before Edison and Swan) burned out after one evening's use, perhaps 4 hours, as well as the inside of the bulb getting dark from the burned carbon, and were only useful as demonstrations of what an incandescent light would look like. The Latimer article does give credit where credit is due, but not the overblown and wild claims made in earlier years, where any patent by Latimer which was an improvement of some existing device was claimed to be the "invention" of the device, whether is was flush toilets or light bulbs. Edison (talk) 15:45, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I just added a reliably sourced paragraph on Lewis Latimer to the Menlo Park (1876–1881) – Electric Light section of the article. Now, before we start to add lots more material to that brief description, please remember that this article is about Edison, and that Mr. Latimer's notable article is linked.  &mdash;  Paine Ellsworth  (  C LIMAX  )  19:40, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me for responding so late on the Lewis Latimer matter. In fact, I'm glad someone beat me to this in contributitory comment. For my part (which I may expand on in the future,) Mr. Latimer was crucial in the formation of the legendary and revolurionary Bell Telephone System. Lewis Latimore also worked for Graham Bell and was on "loan" to him from the Edison company. There was a dilemma. Bell, though he was contentious with Marucci in developing the telephone, was certainly known to his contemporaries' as being nothing of a competent mage where applied mechanics, mathematics and electrical therory was concerned. The problem was that neither Graham Bell, nor his assistant Watson knew how to create a network system to replicte communicated intelligence (conversation) with more than one person (in series). This massive undertaking was assigned to Latimer, who with dilligence and expertise in both mathematical pghysics and applied science actually created the Bell Switching System that operators used to connect one or more parties simultaneaously. This method of course was improved upon with the well-known dial-swiitching method decades later. As I've said, I will expand on this. It is well to note that Graham Bell, humbled by accusations of plagerism of Marucci, Marconi and other innovations, spent the rest of his life trying to vindicate himself as a true original inventor. His exotic kite contraptions, and much later the legitimate invention of the hydrofoil and its practicle applications bore this out! talk) 06:49, 5 March 2011 (UTC)Veryverser
 * Before you start expanding the article, please find some reliable sources. I challenge many of the claims you have made, as to Latimer having done much inventing or technical development for Bell. He was trained as a draftsman, and did some patent drawings. I agree that Bell knew very little of electricity, but Watson was his technician, not Latimer. I challenge Latimer being "on loan" from Bell to his arch rival Edison. I challenge Latimer having designed the "Bell Switching system," whatever you mean by that term. An operator connecting "one party simultaneously" makes no sense, in any event. A phone conversation requires two or more speakers. Conference calls were not a big draw to 19th century phone users, but with the carbon transmitter of Edison and the high impedance earpiece of Bell, and the transformer in the phone set, several people could easily hold a conversation, as demonstrated by party-line operation with 19th century wall phones. "Marucci" by whom I assume you mean Meucci, was a late and fraudulent claimant to having developed a telephone. Claims of his having spontaneously and without a big development process having suddenly built a modern phone are laughable, and were presented during patent litigation by those who did not want to pay royalties to Bell. His work was very early, and may have amounted to an acoustic phone like the string telephone of today. When did Marconi accuse Bell of plagiarism? Edison (talk) 18:43, 3 August 2011 (UTC)