Talk:History of radio

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2021 and 13 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mg9901.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:28, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 2 April 2020 and 20 June 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Hongtul.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:38, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FM move to 100 MHz[edit]

In the FM Radio section, this popped out at me:

The reason the board made this decision was that it had been given flawed evidence by a former Federal Communications Commission engineer named Kenneth Norton. He believed that sunspots, which appear every eleven years, would cause severe disruption to the FM signal. Norton never explained why television signals at the same frequency wouldn't be disrupted.

I can see several reasons for this change. Perhaps Norton did as well and the reasons forgotten?

1) Armstrong 'set up shop' in the 42 MHz region because the vacuum tubes of the 1930s couldn't work reliably at higher frequencies. Also, since the range was less at the higher frequencies and the transmitters more expensive and weaker, he would have a smaller 'audience'. He was already struggling with the economics of that. At that time, the majority of the radio broadcast audience lived in rural areas, where AM was king. I'm amazed he could make it profitable with only city populations for his audience. (The pre-WWII FCC back then regarded the VHF range as wasted spectrum that would never be of any value, so they parked him there where he couldn't harm the much more valuable and socially important, to politicians at least, AM broadcast business.)

A side note: Frequency modulation at 42 MHz and lower was difficult to combine with carrier frequncy stability, too. Getting enough 'swing' while staying on frequency was a challenge, which gave Armstrong design difficulties. He eventually solved these with an expensive and complicated combination of phase modulation, large scale frequency multiplication and heterodyning.

After WWII, tremendous advances in vacuum tube performance allowed their use at microwave frequencies. Also inexpensive and stable transmitters could now achieve very high output powers at the VHF range. Since Armstrong donated the use of his patents to the government during the war, many engineers and scientists became very familiar with the theory and application, resulting in a cadre of experts that knew more than Armstrong about FM, receivers, transmitters and radio wave propagation. I suspect Norton was one of them.

Also the post-WWII FCC was far better staffed with competent engineers and they had to think about the future of radio in a way that benefited the public the most. During the war, the population left the rural communities for the urban manufacturing centers. This change in demographics was not lost on the Commission.

2) During sunspot cycle maxima, ionospheric reflections often cause long distance propagation events up to the 50MHz range. This happens much less often at 100MHz. Because the FM receivers used very wideband FM and employed very good limiters, capture effect would cause the sometimes stronger reflected signals to take over the receiver output as if a switch had been flipped. There was no apparent beat note, so no warning. Just from one second to the next, you'd shift from the local broadcast to one from hundreds to thousands of miles away. This wouldn't be apparent to the listener, it would just seem to him that his radio was broken, since there'd be no hint there was a second signal.

In television with AM video transmission, the onset of this sort of interference is easily seen when the signal strengths are more than a thousand times different, creating 'herring bone' or 'ghosting' effects on the picture. The television audio wouldn't be affected until the signals were nearly equal. The point is the viewer would notice the picture changing and not be alarmed once he had read the owner's instructions.

As far as the FCC was concerned, TV was a much more important development than anything in audio broadcasting (after all, everyone still had AM radios and the only thing FM added was fidelity, important for music lovers with 'golden' ears) since it was totally new and the social and economic impacts were sure to be enormous. They wanted the largest possible audence for each (very expensive) station, so they put the new channels in the low VHF range. It worked. 100 to 150 mile range was possible with an outdoor antenna. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Crusty Curmudgeon (talk • contribs) 13:09, February 29, 2004 (UTC)

Is this only history of radio in the US?[edit]

This article seems in parts to be very much the US story. The article on the BBC says that the BBC was founded in 1922 so would seem to deserve a place in the 'Radio broadcasting is born' section?

Also Digital radio is already up and running in the UK, so perhaps that deserves a mention.Billlion 14:47, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Things have improved, with more coverage of non-US milestones. Of course, a UK-centred view can be just as misleading, but the BBC was very significant. TV broadcasting, for instance, in the 1930s. Was it the first? What of the fuzzy line between experiments and regular broadcasts? But definitely regular scheduled TV broadcasting in the 1930s. Zhochaka 10:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other articles...[edit]

There is also a history of broadcasting article that maybe should be merged or otherwise fiddled with to mix in with this. —User:Mulad (talk) 02:32, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)

I agree, and while this article is still a mess, history of broadcasting is quite a mature article. Suggest moving anything of value in the current article to the history of broadcasting, and leaving history of radio as an article about the history of radio technology. Billlion 17:40, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I have just added the cleanup tag. Part needs merging with history of broadcasting, perhaps what is left is the history of radio technology, would that be a better name for this article? Billlion 05:03, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The history of broadcasting article is much to broad and shallow to be more than a cursory summary of the topic. At a minimum it should link its sections to more detailed articles on history of radio, television, Satellite television, digital audio broadcasting, etc. (admittedly a number of these need work, and there doesn't seem to be a television broadcasting article yet.) --Blainster 15:47, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget the FM broadcasting in the USA article. ABostrom 20:16, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Loomis[edit]

Not even a mention of Mahlon Loomis? - robgood@bestweb.net, 8/15/05

Though Loomis did get an 1872 patent, in those days a description alone was sufficient—no working model was needed. Loomis claimed his wireless telegraph used atmospheric electricity, not radio. There was never any evidence that Loomis, a dentist, ever built a working system in 20 years of promoting it. See this link re: Fakes in early radio history. (He also claimed his system would provide unlimited free electricity, eliminate tornadoes, and cure malaria.) --Blainster 09:03, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Discrepancy about First broadcasts[edit]

There appears to be a bit of a discrepancy between the "Audio Broadcasting" and "Radio Broadcasting Beginnings" sections of this article regarding the "firsts." The most notable one is how the first regular entertainment broadcasts are currently credited to a station operating in the UK in 1922; however Conrad had a regular schedule to broadcast music on his station as early as 1916. (If that doesn't count, KDKA had "regular" entertainment broadcasts before 1922 as well.) I believe the article should make a mention of the fact that the radio firsts are all murky at best regarding legitimacy, as there currently isn't one. Andromeda321 20:11, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

First AM broadcast[edit]

It claims that "Reginald Fessenden used an Alexanderson alternator and rotary spark-gap transmitter..."

So which was it? He couldn't use both at the same time, and a spark cannot be used for A.M (especially via a rotary spark gap!).

Clearly the reference to a rotary spark-gap transmitter should be removed.

Also there's no mention of Lescarboura's modulating an Arc transmitter to send AM in 1908.

Ref: "Electrician and Mechanic" April, 1912, pages 277-280 "Experiences in Wireless Telephoning"

Not only about US and UK[edit]

The 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 ;)

  • I am here trying to confirm Lenin in Bolshevik Russia really broadcast to the masses in 1919. If he did, who could hear him ? On what ? see: Vladimir Lenin

In a radio speech in 1919, Lenin stated: - - "The Tsarist police, in alliance with the landowners and the capitalists, organized pogroms against the Jews. .... Thanks.. Hrothgar 01:44, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Radio detection tubes[edit]

I removed this sentence from the beginning of the section on Audio broadcasting: "The invention of the vacuum tube detector, invented by a team of Westinghouse engineers. " Grammatically it has no predicate (verb), and according to the article Vacuum tube the diode detector was invented by John Ambrose Fleming, not a team of Wesinghouse engineeers. --Blainster 23:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would imagine that it is a more modern form ... the "fleming valve" was very primative ... I'll look around ... J. D. Redding 00:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC) (PS., the vacuum tube oscillators amplifiers didn't become widespread till c. 1915 [after Armstrong patented the way to use it]; also, Forest's valve was better than Fleming's, etc ....)[reply]
Came across the fact that Westinghouse bought up DeForest's and Armstrong's patents ... c.1921 ... when radio really took off ... 1920s was the 1st moder decade ... J. D. Redding
Gonna put in a modified sentence ... "The 1920s saw the development of a more modern vacuum tube, constructed by Westinghouse engineers (after Westinghouse bought DeForest's and Armstrong's patent.)." J. D. Redding 00:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As long as you understand that Fleming's tube was a diode, a two-element device that rectifies (or detects) a signal, but it cannot amplify. DeForest's tube is a three-element triode that can amplify the signal appearing at the grid in the larger plate current. The diode is required or you cannot build a receiver. The triode is nice to make a louder sound, but it is not required. So Fleming's invention was the crucial one. DeForest's was a good advance but it wasn't the key to making radio work. --Blainster 04:39, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good argument, wrong conclusion. Generations of crystal-set tinkerers understand that radio works without amplification. There were several simpler detectors available before the Fleming tube, such as the cat's whisker, or Reginald Fessenden's hot wire Barretter and electrolytic diode. DeForest's advance was to make amplification available. This is essential to FM, but only a quantitative improvement for AM.LeadSongDog 20:05, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"The diode is required or you cannot build a receiver" is absurd. Almost every radio built in the 1920s when radio began to flourish, had triode vacuum tubes and no diodes. Scan through "The ABC of Vacuum Tubes, An Elementary and Practical Book on the Theory and Operation of Vacuum Tubes, as Detectors and Amplifiers." by E.H. Lewis c1922 and tell me how many vacuum tube radio circuits you see which used a diode as a detector ... verging on none. In almost every case a triode with a grid was used as detector and for amplification. "Behind the Front Panel - The Design and Development of 1920's Radios" by David Rutland c1994 shows the exact same thing - pretty much only triodes. "Old Time Radios - Restoration and Repair" by Joseph J. Carr c1991, c2017 shows abundances of early radio circuits, pretty much all of which used triodes and no diodes. Once Doc Lee DeForest placed a grid into a vacuum tube creating a triode, and then Armstrong provided clear explanation for how a triode worked and then showed how it could be used in receiver and transmitter circuits, there simply wasn't much advantage in using a diode as a detector. Everybody designing radios quickly switched over to using triodes in their designs. Diodes offered a mere slight improvement over crystal sets and it was the invention of the triode and clever circuit designs by Armstrong becoming available, which caused the diode to virtually disappear, and the age of broadcast radio flourished. Today, a look at any radio circuit shows some form of transistors (the modern incarnation of triodes) being used in front ends, and no diodes being used as detectors. Fleming created a better detector alternative to the crystal set and little more. Nearly all of the radios we use today - vacuum tube or semiconductor - have as their practical origin point the inclusion of the grid and invention of the triode, which evolved into various forms of transistors. - Ed Scott, N6RFG, ews1248@gmail.com 206.85.128.255 (talk) 16:22, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In the early tube days the diode, two electron vacuum tube, was the known rectifier. Now diode is short for rectifier, and the commonly used detector. A triode has (at least) two electrodes and so is a superset of diodes. I suspect that the wording could be better, as it almost always can be, but some non-linear element is needed. Gah4 (talk) 21:31, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not even necessary for FM. FM Crystal sets definitely exist. Do a google search.

Regenerative vs. heterodyne circuits[edit]

An editor seem to be confusing regenerative with heterodyne circuits in his edits regarding Reginald Fessenden. These two types of circuit have a different design, with regens based on high positive feedback, and heterodynes based on IF generation using a separate oscillator. They are not the same, and not used together in the same receiver. --Blainster 18:04, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reginald Fessenden used (his own) heterodyne principles and Tesla's (regenerative) principles ... Reginald Fessenden - The Radio Broadcasts of Canadian Reginald ... Reginald Fessenden started his own company where he invented the modulation of radio waves, the "heterodyne principle" ... regeneration is done as in Tesla's disruptive discharge coils and the operations of his alternators ... also ... they can be together in the same system (Regenerative and Reflex Receivers explains this ...), if not the same circuit ... J. D. Redding 03:47, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge "Invention of radio"[edit]

The article Invention of radio was started in January, 2006. It contains information that may be useful in this article, but covers the same topic, so should be merged here. --Blainster 17:43, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Invention of radio seems now to be specifically about the disputes about who invented radio. Anthony Appleyard 09:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
History of radio and Invention of radio largely covered the same field, so I merged them. I put the 4 longest of the resulting sections (Marconi, Tesla, Jagdish Chandra Bose, Heinrich Hertz) in History of radio (more information) with summaries and pointers to them in History of radio. Invention of radio now is a redirect to History of radio. See Talk:Marconi's_role_in_the_history_of_radio for discussion on my reversions. Anthony Appleyard 09:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to revise History of radio and Invention of radio, and it caused controversy (see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Invention of radio and some pages that it links to). My versions are in my namespace. Anthony Appleyard 17:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pick a place: Here, your talk page, Invention Of Radio, wherever. Pick one spot, we can discuss it. Sparkhead 19:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They are different so dont merge.

  • DO NOT MERGE I think that the Invention of radio should stay a seperate article. There is enough subject matter to justify it and adding it to this article would make this article much longer. It is ok to have articles on the details and in some cases like this one, it's a good idea, so don't merge. Anonym1ty 19:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Photo:An early radio on display in the National Museum of Australia[edit]

This image appears to be a localizing speaker as part of a display and not an early radio.

Hmm, this is possible but as far as I remember, I took the photo coz the caption said it was an early radio. I could be wrong tho. Maybe someone who lives in Canberra could double check? --Fir0002 www 08:05, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

West Sayville and radio history[edit]

Going through the Telefunken reference to the West Sayville entry, I found a rather poorly-written section on the radio station, which includes a link to what seems to be an excellent web-page, on the history of the site and the technology used. http://www.sayville.com/wireless.html Could somebody more familiar with what sort of info should go where have a look; I reckon that page is worth a mention here, but it may be better referenced elsewhere. Zhochaka 10:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup[edit]

Differences

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_radio&diff=61282925&oldid=60336489

pre-bullet style

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_radio&oldid=60336489

This article needs to get out of the bullet style. 134.193.168.244 23:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have put it back to timeline format: by new editing, not by reverting. Essay style and "varying the expression" is confusing to read through when searching for specific pieces of information, regardless of what schoolteachers drum into their pupils. As it was put back into essay style, the text was chopped regardless into even-sized paragraphs with information about different men and different items of technology mixed together. Anthony Appleyard 08:56, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The bullet style is not encyclopedia style and expansion of the topic in paragraph form is easy to read through when searching. The text was divided as to time period with information about different men and different items of technology mixed together, as they occred at the same date. 134.193.26.35
  • I have seen plenty of list-style timeline descriptions in Wikipedia and in encyclopedias printed on paper. Anthony Appleyard 14:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removed[edit]

The following is not relevant, death of people should goto their bio. On the first day of 1894, Heinrich Rudolf Hertz died. 134.193.26.35

image is not a radio[edit]

that photo isn't a radio....

It' a speaker. http://www.interface.com/cone_of_silence


Popov[edit]

Why is Alexander Popov mentioned after Oliver Lodge and Jagdish Chandra Bose? The public demonstration of his invention came before theirs... --Illythr 14:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marconi/Tesla priority dispute[edit]

The sentence, "In 1943, Tesla's patent (number 645576) was reinstated by the U.S. Supreme Court shortly after Tesla's death." suggests that the referenced Tesla patent was at some point invalidated, which is not the case. I'd like to see this section simplified, with a link added that points to the "Invention of Radio." GPeterson 15:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The U.S. Supreme Court gave J. S. Stone priority. Stone himself gave Tesla priority for radio in his biography. J. D. Redding 19:19, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Take out the whitespace? Consolidate paragraphs?[edit]

Can someone take out the whitespace and consolidate paragraphs?

There is need to polish into even-sized paragraphs. Maybe there is something in the Wikipedia:Manual of style. Anthony Appleyard believes that a lot of whitespace for text about the same (not different) people or happening at different times is nicer starting on a new line for every sentence. The article is jarring this way.

AA ver
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_radio&oldid=117529520
Red ver
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_radio&oldid=117529219

J. D. Redding

  • If searching through for particular information, it is easier if there is an end-of-line (either blank line or a <br>) at each change of date or change of the man doing the radio work described. People read Wikipedia for information, not merely to find vaguely interesting essays. "Best style" can intrude where it is not called for: for example, [1] is an example of what to avoid: a routine report on a railway accident written in long meandering classical-type "periods" as was usual for literary books at the time. Anthony Appleyard 15:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not a list. It's an encyclopedia article!!! J. D. Redding
  • And it is not a literary essay. It is something that people may want to look through for particular information. Looking for speciific information I have wasted too much time down the years wading through tangles of "best literary style" "varying the expression" and "elegant variation". Anthony Appleyard 15:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did you miss the "encyclopedia article"!!! It's not a essay ... BUT it's not a timeline either. In an encyclopedia or other reference work, an article is a primary division of content written in paragraph form. The usability of the article is hedious. Too much whitespace. J. D. Redding 15:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In some places, e.g. History_of_radio#Marconi, there aree alternating short sentences about different conflicting people, and, there at least, I prefer each contestant to be in a separate short paragraph. Anthony Appleyard 15:38, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I section that off in "turn of the century" section as it does nothing to do with marconi!. see version link above. J. D. Redding
  • Wikipedia:Don't use line breaks. J. D. Redding
    • Note: it is uncontroversial that paragraphs should be used to make articles easy to read. J. D. Redding
  • OK, OK, I am doing some paragraph-amalgamating. Anthony Appleyard 16:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • After User:Reddi's last edits (which were around 03:30, 25 March 2007 by Wikipedia time) I re-split the joined paragraphs but left the other alterations alone, instead of a plain revert. Particularly in History of radio#Around 1895: 3-way near photofinish for first use of radio I feel that each claimant for priority should have his own paragraph. The pages' history tables give me access to each editor's edit history, and User:Reddi seem to have been going round several pages amalgamating short paragraphs in each. This page has had its current type of paragraph structure for well over a year, and nobody before has been so badly inconvenienced by it that he has changed its paragraph structure. Anthony Appleyard 08:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Julio Cervera Baviera[edit]

Does he belong here?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julio_Cervera_Baviera

Dates of first radio stations[edit]

I need the exact dates for when each of these countries adopted radio service...

  1. American Samoa
  2. Angola
  3. British Cameroon (now part of Cameroon)
  4. British Leeward Islands
  5. British Windward Islands
  6. Buganda (Uganda)
  7. Cameroon
  8. Eritrea
  9. Faroe Islands
  10. French Guiana
  11. French Polynesia
  12. French Somaliland (Djibouti)
  13. Gambia
  14. Gibraltar
  15. Guadeloupe
  16. Italian Somaliland (Somalia)
  17. Martinique
  18. Monaco
  19. New Caledonia
  20. New Hebrides Islands (Vanuatu)
  21. Nyasaland (Malawi)
  22. Portuguese Guinea (Guinea-Bissau)
  23. Portuguese India (now part of India)
  24. Reunion Island
  25. Ruanda-Urundi (Rwanda/Burundi)
  26. St. Pierre and Miquelon
  27. Solomon Islands
  28. Spanish Sahara (Western Sahara)
  29. Swaziland
  30. Tonga
  31. Trucial States (United Arab Emirates)
  32. U.S Virgin Islands

If anyone has at least one answer, then post it here. 71.212.249.68 (talk) 02:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a few. I only have the year, not the precise date, for some of them:
British Leeward Islands - 1952 (Radio Montserrat)
British Windward Islands - 1954 (Windward Islands Broadcasting Service)
Faroe Islands - 6 Feb 1957 (Útvarp Føroya)
French Guiana - 9 Jun 1951 (Radio-Cayenne)
French Polynesia - 1949 (Radio-Tahiti)
Gibraltar - 16 Feb 1958 (Radio Gibraltar)
Guadeloupe - 1937 (Radio-Guadeloupe)
Martinique - 22 Oct 1937 (Radio-Martinique)
Mayotte - Feb 1961 (Radio Comores)
New Caledonia - 3 Jun 1937 (Radio-Nouméa)
New Hebrides - 2 Aug 1966 (Radio Vila)
Réunion - 1929 (Radio-Saint-Denis)
Saint Pierre and Miquelon - 1930 (Radio Club)
Swaziland - 19 Apr 1966 (Radio Swaziland)
Tonga - 4 July 1961 (Radio Tonga)
--Picapica (talk) 13:58, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ward and Loomis Patents[edit]

Has anyone actually read the patent by Ward! It is pure crackpottery and has nothing to do with radio transmission but aims to collect 'atmospheric electricity' with a windward facing funnel. No mention is made of any aspect of electromagnetism or radio waves as they were understood at the time. The Loomis patent is described as being similar.

I my opinion neither has any connection with the invention or application of radio and both should be removed.Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:48, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hertz[edit]

In the section on Hertz it states that 'he discovered that the electromagnetic equations could be reformulated into a partial differential equation called the wave equation'. Can anybody verify this?Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:50, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that is what Maxwell did. But I think Hertz was around at the same time, and it was Hertz who did the experiment. Gah4 (talk) 23:36, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-history?[edit]

If we've got names and dates and documentation, we've got the history. It seems a little perverse to call this "pre-history". --Wtshymanski (talk) 22:41, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

yes, i think the word "pre-history" is incorrectly used here. Johncmullen1960 (talk) 06:54, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stop the US bias[edit]

It seems that some work has been done to reduce the overly American crap in this article but it's still not complete. What's with separating the USA/Canada states/provinces from the rest of the world? Are you saying that the rest of the world doesn't matter or that divisions of other countries (nations of the UK, provinces of Argentina, etc.) don't matter? Delete all the crap about individual US states and Canadian provinces/territories and just add 'USA' and 'Canada' to the list of countries. I might understand it if the USA were the first users of radio broadcasting but they weren't (Argentina and Netherlands were). Maybe Wikipedia ought to be separated into an 'International English Wikipedia' (with intelligent and not dumbed-down articles) and a 'US English Wikipedia' full of pop trivia, explaining everything (London, which is in England... etc.)?--Xania talk 21:10, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is just another example of a European, hateful, hate filled, and green with envy. You are a pitiful specimen of an otherwise nice country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.32.42.198 (talk) 14:10, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]


I de-retarded that section. I think that US/Canadian deserves a sort of special consideration consideration the hugeness of the geographical regions it covers, and inequality in the developpement of individual states and provinces. The solution is not to slash the US & Canada section, but rather to expand those of the USSR, the British commonwealth, and so on.Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 05:40, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What are criteria for First Radio Station?[edit]

Does this mean first broadcast or first licensed broadcast?

For example, Ohio broadcaster WHK was licensed Feb. 21, 1922, but it had been broadcasting experimentally since July 26, 1921 as 8ACS, so either date could be used.

There is a lot of good (and sometimes contradictory) information at http://www.nrcdxas.org/articles/1-states.txt Nightkey (talk) 13:01, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It will probably never be settled unless multiple contenders are recognized on a variety of grounds. Wikipedia cannot take sides, but can state (with sourcing) that certain stations have primacy per this or that criterion. Hertz1888 (talk) 13:26, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove the statements: Marconi: commercialized the Radio[edit]

It's quite offensive towards an A class scientist who has been continuosly ridiculized in this article. Never heard of a door to door seller awarded with Nobel prize in Phisics. His achievement in the Radio trasmission are outstanding!!! That statement is utterly ridiculous and denigratory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Magnagr (talk • contribs) 00:59, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request[edit]

In section 13.2 Secondary sources, the URL of the final reference (Wunsch, A. David "Misreading the Supreme Court: A Puzzling Chapter in the History of Radio". Mercurians.org.) should be changed from http://www.mercurians.org/nov98/misreading.html to http://www.mercurians.org/1998_Fall/Misreading.htm . (Wavid lunch (talk) 17:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Done. Hertz1888 (talk) 00:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who's on, first?[edit]

Not to open another priority can of worms (I hope...), but I don't know where (or if) to include this, so...: International Radio Corp (Ann Arbor, MI) is credited with the 4-tube Kadette, the first volume-produced AC-DC home set (also the first volume-produced plastic-cased set), introduced 1931, and with the Kadette Jr., the first pocket radio, "world's smallest AC-DC radio", introduced 1933. Source: Mahon, Morgan E. A Flick of the Switch 1930–1950 (Antiques Electronics Supply, 1990), p.101. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 14:24, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Around 1895: 3-way near photofinish for first use of radio[edit]

This section is utterly pointless and attempts to answer an unanswerable question by not comparing like with like. I suggest that it is deleted. Martin Hogbin (talk)

Calzecchi-Onesti[edit]

The article says that 'In 1884, Temistocle Calzecchi-Onesti at Fermo in Italy invented a primitive device that responded to radio waves'. This is two years before Hertz started his work to produced radio waves. Can anyone explain? Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:57, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As this claim to have invented a detector of radio wave two years before anyone had produced them is completely unsourced, I propose to delete it unless anyone can provide a reason to retain it. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:46, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Harold J Power section[edit]

The reference given in this section does not appear to work. Can this be fixed or the section removed. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:22, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In this article "Teslaphiles" hit again by hiding the sheer truth which is: ONLY MARCONI IS THE INVENTOR OF THE RADIO !![edit]

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) 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 !!!!!!

3) 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).

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

5) 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.

6) 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 did something similar??

7)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 !!!!

8) 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 !!!

9) 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) 11:31, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'Who invented the radio?' infobox[edit]

We already have an article on this subject that could do with some serious attention. I suggest this redundant box is removed. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:49, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can we restore the box? Can someone list the problems with having such a box?

In the history of radio and development of "wireless telegraphy", several people are claimed to have "invented the radio" leading to a great radio controversy. The most commonly accepted claims are:

  • Jagadish Chandra Bose
  • Guglielmo Marconi, who equipped ships with life-saving wireless communications, conducted a reported transatlantic radio communications experiments in 1901 and established the first commercial transatlantic radio service in 1907.
  • Alexander Stepanovich Popov
  • Nikola Tesla, who developed means to produce radio frequency currents, publicly demonstrated the principles of radio, and transmitted long distance signals.

Radio technology is a product of many different discoveries and developments.

So removed all reference to Bose who invented the “mercury coherer with a telephone” ? 199.246.40.54 (talk)

Sincerely, --J. D. Redding 11:05, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The box contains nearly as much text as the relevant section of the article. Its a giant distraction. It ignores Hertz, who contributed far more than...certain other gentlemen...listed there. It's redundant with the text. Look at WP:DISINFOBOX and tick off the matches between this box and the essay's bete noire. Why do we need more clutter? Let's just have infoboxes instead of articles...--Wtshymanski (talk) 14:36, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is not any matches.
No... contains only information found in the lead.
No... longer than a third of the article's body
No... only a photo, a person's occupation, and date and place of birth/death.
No... multiple entries within any identifying field
No... contains subjective categories
It's not clutter, it additional information. And lets expand this article. --J. D. Redding 16:17, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My other objections still stand. What is the attraction to boxes? --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:00, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The box is a simple way to briefly show a synopsis of the larger and more indepyth paragraph. As to having as much text, expand the paragraph and content. That is a problem with the page, not the infobox.--J. D. Redding 05:52, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Things that might be mentioned, linked or described in the article[edit]

Start of commercial broadcasting. Foundation of the BBC and other national government and private networks. Two-way radio. Radio on warships. Radio on airplanes. Radio navigation. World War I use. World War II use. Battle of the beams. Radio networking. Communications with remote outposts. Flying Doctors. (Land) mobile radio. Requirement for regulations and international coordination. History of world radio conferences. Philosophy- commercial radio vs. government controlled? Propaganda use. Spectrum auctions. Rise and fall of over the air television broadcasting. Increased demand for radio spectrum for "wireless" services. Social effects...streets empty during "Fibber McGee and Molly". Commsats. Space vehicles. Radar.

Or, we could put infoboxes instead, which are so much more important to an understanding of the subject. --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:53, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The VACUUM TUBE! How could I forget that. The vacuum tube made radio practical, brought it out of the Navy and into the home. Talk about the progression from untuned-->cat's whisker-->TRF-->regen-->superhet. --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:56, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[Chuckles]. Yes the importance of the vacc tubes should be expanded. --J. D. Redding 01:09, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Amateur radio. It was all amateur radio until the first professional radio (when was that, exactly?). Mention the exile of the hams to the wasteland below 200 metres, discoveries they made and then the pros took over. --Wtshymanski (talk) 22:21, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Radio networks are often mentioned, but the principle is never explained. How are radio stations networked together? How were nation-wide broadcasts accomplished? It's always a mystery, it seems. Landroo (talk) 05:13, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Other innovators[edit]

Many scientists and inventors contributed to the invention of wireless telegraphy and telephony. Individuals that helped to further the science include:

If not present in article should be mentioned. --J. D. Redding 01:08, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First wireless music and voice transmission[edit]

The technical university of graz (TUG) states on [2] (german) that the first experimental wireless transmittion of music and voice took place on the 15. June 1904 at the intitute of physics Rechbauerstrasse by Otto Nussbaumer. I think that this fact should be added. -- Toml (talk) 23:22, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1930 - unbeatable BBC[edit]

hi! i just found the text from 1930 below in the 1931 issue of the BBC Year Book, page 235. i don't know where exactly to place it in this article. in the german wiki, where i come from, we have a much more political and international focus on radio history. maybe someone can insert it in the proper space. there are two things i personally don't understand in the text, namely "eight mills a night" and "less than a cent a family A NIGHT" - what does "night" mean in this context? Maximilian (talk) 16:16, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AN AMERICAN ON BRITISH BROADCASTING
An extract from Chap. I of "Science and the New Civilisation," by Prof. R.A. Millikan of the Michigan University:
...But the programme that is on the air in England is incomparably superior to anything to be heard here, for the B.B.C. provides the public of England with the largest return in education and in entertainment for eight mills a night ever provided, I suspect, anywhere in the history of the world. For it employs only high-class speakers, musicians, and entertainers of all sorts, so that the whole British nation is now being given educational advantages of the finest possible sort, at less than a cent a family a night, collected only from those who wish to take advantage of them.
Hi Maximilian: you asked what 'a night' refers to. In simple parlance: "per night" or 'per a night of programming'. In English, many rates are expressed on a daily or nightly cost basis, such as hotel rates: '100 dollars (or pounds) per night', discounting the fact that period actually normally refers to a 24 hour period. The next definition, 'mills' refers to a unit of currency of one tenth of one cent, or more precisely, one thousandth of a dollar. It is normally used only in financial calculations. Thus "eight mills a night" means eight tenths of a cent per night's broadcast, etc... Best: HarryZilber (talk) 22:55, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

excellent explanation, harry! thanks. in german "eight mills" is "Acht Promille". i first thought of a corn mill, not of percentage calculations. would you mind implanting the quote i found into the lemma? ATB Maximilian (talk) 10:02, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In this article Marconi doesn't exist, so we have found that Cervera Baviera is more important than Marconi in the development of Radio[edit]

And Marconi has been remembered only in relationship to the 1943 supreme court verdict (poor Tesla). Wikipedia people is really incredible!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magnagr (talk • contribs) 19:52, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Initial suppression of FM radio[edit]

The article doesn't mention anything about the long delay in the adoption of FM radio. I've checked in a number of places in Wikipedia (especially around FM radio), but I haven't been able to find anything here, but I think it should be mentioned. In brief, the patent holders for FM were making a lot of money from AM radio, and therefore saw no reason to cut into their profits. It's a little hard to get a firm estimate for the resulting delay in the adoption of the superior technology, but it was many years. Shanen (talk) 03:32, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose so, but there is also the chicken and egg problem. People won't buy receivers until there are enough transmitters, people won't build transmitters until there are enough receivers. The frequency change also slowed things down. Gah4 (talk) 23:41, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

how many articles does it take to tell the history of radio?[edit]

First, there was Radio#History, which was quite lengthy and contained material not covered in here. Then there was the History of radio receivers which cannot be separated from that of transmitters, contrary to what it claimed. Fgnievinski (talk) 04:36, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Splitting suggests that this article is big enough. If anything, better if we can find something to move to other articles. Jim.henderson (talk) 01:04, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Split technology and broadcasting[edit]

Where History of radio broadcasting could be started from Radio broadcasting#History. Or move portions to History of broadcasting. In any case, rename present article to History of radio technology to minimize confusion. Fgnievinski (talk) 04:54, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 17 June 2015[edit]

Currently, the article has, in the "20th Century" section, Starting in the 4th paragraph, and encompassing the 5th and start of the 6th, the following sequence:

"Ships at sea heard a broadcast that included Fessenden playing O Holy Night on the violin and reading a passage from the Bible.[38]

In June 1912 Marconi opened the world's first purpose-built radio factory at New Street Works in Chelmsford, England.

This was, for all intents and purposes, the first transmission of what is now known as amplitude modulation or AM radio."

The middle sentence, comprising the 5th paragraph, has been inappropriately inserted between the first and third sentences, which need to be sequential. That middle sentence should properly follow rather than precede the third sentence, thus allowing the chronology and logical construction to make sense, as "the first transmission" clearly refers to Fessenden in 1906, and has nothing to do with Marconi's factory in 1912.

173.180.150.33 (talk) 10:34, 17 June 2015 (UTC)an occasional anonymous contributor of grammatical corrections.[reply]

 Done Thanks for pointing that out - Arjayay (talk) 13:50, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge History of radio transmitters and History of radio receivers here?[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Consensus appears to be against a merge. Furthermore, the proposal is no longer workable as History of radio transmitters has been merged into Transmitter and History of radio receivers has been merged into Receiver (radio).

I think such a merger is a bad idea. This article is big enough, as per Wikipedia:Splitting. On the other hand, it isn't good enough, and future improvements may change the size so much as to suggest revisiting such questions. Jim.henderson (talk) 17:34, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. This article is nowhere near complete, and to cover the general topic adequately will require all the space in this article. Plus I think if those articles are to be merged, the proper place for the content is Radio transmitter and Radio receiver. --ChetvornoTALK 19:30, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on History of radio. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:55, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

This article needs references to meet Wikipedia's guidelines. Unreferenced material in this article SHOULD be challenged and removed. I can't believe this article is so long and has so many entire paragraphs with no references whatsoever and such fragmented incoherent sentences that repeat and contradict one another consecutively! I can only assume that this article has not been written to be user friendly to anyone who isn't a radio enthusiast and therefore already familiar with the subject matter. God only knows why Wikipedia allowed this article to be semi-locked for editing, but I'm seeing more and more of this across Wikipedia in recent months where people are just deluding themselves into playing at being historians and think they are "writing histories" by editing Wikipedia. It's an encylopedia. If you want to write a communal project about the history of radio, buy a domain name and pay to host it and make your own researched website, add a forum so you can all bicker about whether there's too much about the US or not. Please keep Wikipedia true to its purpose, which is an encyclopedia which relies on verifiable information, not historical narrative written by bickering enthusiasts who refuse to share "their" article. Why ANYONE needs to be a gatekeeper (i.e. whoever is able to unlock editing on it) on such a shoddily written, rambling and incoherent article is really beyond me, they clearly don't have the time or inclination to do a proper job. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.125.143.37 (talk) 22:23, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on History of radio. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:33, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 13 October 2016[edit]


Under Summary, Heading 19th Century, it says " In a 1864 presentation," but it should be an 1864 presentation, because 1864 is pronounced eighteen-sixty-four, which starts with a vowel. Harper9202 (talk) 18:27, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Right you are. Thanks! Hertz1888 (talk) 19:03, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on History of radio. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:07, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thinly supported, almost self-promotion sneaks into timeline: "first all-digital transmitter"[edit]

This item: 

  2015: The first all-digital radio transmitter, called Pizzicato, was introduced.[61]

managed to get appended to a quasi-timeline of major milestones. I have several concerns: 1) This is not the first all-digital radio transmitter. In fact this technique has been around for years, and prior-art makes it debatable whether this is even patentable. I worked on a strikingly similar "smart dust" integrated circuit project at MIT back in 1997, but probable even *we* weren't the first to try this approach to DSSS radio. By no means do I wish to take away from the Pizzicato group's achievements--more power to them--but 2) This faux-milestone certainly doesn't belong in this sort of "broad brushstrokes" timeline: (Take a look at the section in question. "One of these things are not like the others"... this one)

If there are no objections, I'm going to remove this after a very reasonable waiting period. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcpublic (talk • contribs) 16:36, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It does seem that more modern developments should be part of the article, but I agree that these, and later entries, aren't them. Probably should cover HD radio, as stations I know broadcast it even though I don't know anyone with a receiver. Gah4 (talk) 06:50, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on History of radio. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:34, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 8 January 2018[edit]

NIKOLA TESLA INVENTED THE FIRST RADIO CONTROLLED BOAT. HE ALSO HELD THE PATENT. YOUR ERROR MARCONI STOLE PATENT BUT SIX MONTHS AFTER TESLA PASSED AWAY, THE U.S. SUPREME COURT TOOK IT AWAY FROM MARCONI AND RE-AWARDED IT TO THE ORIGINAL CREATOR AND PATENT HOLDER. PLEASE FIX THIS TOTALLY INCORRECT INFORMATION. MICHELLELANE (talk) 05:01, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: as you have not requested a specific change in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
More importantly, you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article.
Finally, please stop SHOUTING - thank you - Arjayay (talk) 11:34, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bamberger's Department Store[edit]

The article says that the Bamberger's Department Store had an in-store transmitter. Usually in-store means for people inside the store, though portable radio receivers weren't popular at the time. Would anyone listed to an in-store station? Gah4 (talk) 23:44, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

From Bamberger's#WOR_Radio it seems that the signal was mostly outside the store. Gah4 (talk) 23:47, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Digtial radio, and discussion needed.[edit]

I just reverted a whole bunch of changes, which I believe need to be discussed first. As just one example, the invention of the MOSFET isn't especially important to this article, even if it is to modern digital systems, including radios. There is a little on the advance in radio technology from the vacuum tube, and a little from the transistor, but not in detail. Discuss away! Gah4 (talk) 11:48, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If your only issue with my edits is that one thing, then you could've removed just that one thing. That's not a reason to revert everything else I've added. Maestro2016 (talk) 18:06, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've now removed that part from the article. If you have any other specific issues, then feel free to mention them. There's no need to revert everything. Please be more specific about what parts you have an issue with. Maestro2016 (talk) 18:10, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For now, I will see if anyone else has anything to say. Mostly I think it is too much detail in the wrong place. There are two paragraphs on the introduction of vacuum tubes to radio, from the simple triodes of de Forest, through the pentagrid converter of later receivers, all in those two paragraphs. (That is, no details.) There are years of bipolar transistor use, into simpler and then more complicated bipolar ICs not mentioned at all. And then fine details of RF-CMOS. The article is a rough overview of the landscape, of the major changes in technologies over decades. Gah4 (talk) 00:40, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a sentence on the bipolar transistor, and trimmed the RF CMOS content down to a single sentence. I think that should address the issues concerning balance of content. Maestro2016 (talk) 01:18, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed AAC and MDCT from the summary. If you have any other suggestions, then feel free to mention them here. Maestro2016 (talk) 02:29, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

tuned circuits[edit]

As well as I know it, it took some years from untuned spark-gap transmitters, through tuned but still very wide, and eventually the modern AM radio with bandwidth twice the maximum modulation frequency, and stations spaced about twice the bandwidth apart. There is a recent edit related to this, during the spark-gap years, but tuned enough to allow more than one station transmitting at a time. The article doesn't seem to cover this well. Gah4 (talk) 02:00, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BRD edits[edit]

This, this and this edit were a bit off as far as WP:TONE, WP:PUFF, mass deletion without comment, material cited to college websites that seem to be typos, material cited to college websites that seem to be POV.

They do point to some problems in the article. The paragraph "The idea of wireless communication" jumps through several topics, needs to be broken up. Describing what Hughes did as "intentional" is bad wording, makes it seem like he was trying to build a radio system, he was not. "scientists and inventors experimented with wireless transmission" again makes it sound like they were trying to attempt communication, they were not. Tesla was the anti-Hertzian wave guy (intentionaly so), so he should not be in the "Hertzian waves" section. There also seems to be a "20th century" section followed by a Digital era section followed by another 20th century section followed by another 20th century section followed by a Digital era section. Huh? Anyway, looks like there should be some basic encyclopedic cleanup. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:50, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested edits[edit]

The paragraphs under 'Regulations of radio stations in the U.S.' are sloppy: missing spaces, poor grammar and word choice. It appears a non-English 'speaker' has written much of it. Please correct.66.217.5.89 (talk) 01:46, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're somebody! Go for it!. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:25, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Superheterodyne receiver[edit]

There is no mention in this article that I can see of the superheterodyne circuit demonstrated by Armstrong in 1919. This was a critical invention because it meant radios only needed one tuner per radio, rather than a separate tuner for each station. It moved radio receivers from the toy of rich amateurs to widespread public use and they were really the first usable radio sets.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superheterodyne_receiver. 60.231.232.112 (talk) 01:48, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Before superheterodyne, there was tuned RF, which has a series, maybe three or four, LC filters with a tube amplifier in between. This means tuning each one, each time you change stations. I believe what people do, though, is mark on the dial for each one, the position for each station. (And there weren't as many as now.) Superheterodyne usually has one RF filter and the IF oscillator tuner, so two coupled variable capacitors. Hopefully close enough to each other. Gah4 (talk) 03:13, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 18 February 2022[edit]

In the "History of Radio" article, "Beginning of the 20th Century" paragraph, change Glace Bay, Newfoundland to Glace Bay, Nova Scotia. 🇨🇦 45.44.183.7 (talk) 23:17, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done The Marconi article also says Glace Bay Nova Scotia. RudolfRed (talk) 01:11, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

light and microwaves[edit]

Visible light might be about 550nm, or 0.55um. But far IR gets to about 1mm, and can be called light. And microwaves get to about 1mm. So, technically, microwaves reach to (non-visible) light. From Microwave#Hertzian optics it seems that Bose was about 5mm, not far from (non-visible) light. Gah4 (talk) 06:59, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Complete old merger[edit]

Very rough cleanup of multiple redundant sections/mentions left after 8 year old merger. Needs more work. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 02:15, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 5 November 2023[edit]

Change James Clerk Maxwell, mentioned in "In an 1864 presentation, published in 1865, James Clerk Maxwell proposed theories of electromagnetism" to James Clerk Maxwell, link to (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Clerk_Maxwell) P1cturelamp (talk) 03:47, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 14:32, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:History_of_radio&oldid=1194089015"