Talk:David Edward Hughes

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

Untitled[edit]

I am looking for verifiable sources on the timing and nature of innovations in microphones by David Hughes and Emile Berliner. Bell had invented the electromagnetic transmitter/receiver, and patented electrical speech transmission via "undulatory waves" which convered any subsequent technology, but the patent claims should have been disallowed as too broad. relative to what he had invented, and his phone made a great receiver but too weak of a transmitter. The Hughes original microphone was apparently crude, a nail laid across 2 other nails connected to a battery and a Bell type phone receiver. About the same time Berliner filed a caveat for "loose contact" between a metal diaphragm and a metal screwhead in his crude telephone transmitter, a slight refinement on the early Reis "make or break" contact phone which could convey pitch but not articulate speech. Berliner's transmitter was useless without carbon buttons or granules. Edison from his years of experience with the variable resistance of carbon under pressure, introduced a carbon button in place of the metal screwhead, apparently independent of Berliner and Hughes, which produced the first practical telephone transmitter. Then at some point Hughes changed from nails to carbon rods in loose contact. His "microphone" would pick up very weak sounds like a fly walking on it, but was very erratic and useless for normal telephony. Edison won the long patent litigation around 1892. The interesting thing is the timeline, and any evidence of whether one inventor borrowed from another. Along with this was the legion of tinkerers who had fooled with any aspect of telephony and popped up during the litigation with bogus claims of having invented the telephone. It looks like Bell, Berliner, and Edison have strong claims for, respectively, the undulatory speech currents and electromagnetic receiver, the "loose contact" principle, and the carbon button. Hughes clearly worked along the same path as Berliner and Edison, but in what exact timeline, and did his work influence theirs, was he working purely independently, did he document his work?Edison 20:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

8th May 1878 is the date for his first demonstration of his microphone, to the Royal Society, per the websie I added to the references. The first "public demonstration" was later. Now there is a date to compare to those for Berliner and Edison. I added this date to the timeline in the Telephone article. Per the timeline there, Bell patented his electromagnetic phone in Jan 1877, Berliner filed a caveat for the loose contact transmitter in April 1877, and April 1877 Edison applied for a patent for the carbon transmitter complete with induction coil to step up impedance and isolate the battery from the line circuit. So Hughes does not appear to get primacy. He had access to knowledge of the work of Bell, and probably to that of Berliner and Edison.Edison 20:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Read "Before We Went Wireless by Ivor Hughes and David Ellis Evans" for as much detail and references as you could ask for. Gutta Percha (talk) 21:44, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Radio[edit]

I removed the following from the article page to here:"Sometime after 1896, Marconi befriended another Preece, both of them were experimenting with transmissions across the Conwy estuary. (This was the site where in 1918 a transmission of Morse signals was sent across the world to Australia.) There is some speculation that Marconi actually adopted some of Hughes ideas which he obtained through Preece." What is meant by "befriended another Preece?" The site of an estuary being used in 1918 is irrelevant to the history of Hughes' work elsewhere in the 1870's. "There is some speculation" is the sort of weasel words we try to avoid, and lacks a source. Marconi used technology that had very little to do with that used by Hughes. This whole section which I removed is speculative, vague, and appears to be original research. There is no evidence I have found that Hughes early work had any more to do with Marconi's that Thomas Edison's "etheric force" experiments of the 1870's or Joseph Henry's transmission of electromagnetic signals from one coil to another in the 1930's. Henry was the first to send an electromagnitic pulse train from a coil in one part of a building to a coil in another part.Edison 15:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "Radio" Reference (and the above comments) are wrong in a number of ways:

(1) Hughes clearly was using Electromagnetic Waves (e.g. Radio) and NOT Magnetic Induction. (2) The Transmitter was not Clockwork (it was the means of modulation which was Clockwork). (3) He didn't use Morse-Code, but just keyed the Spark TX (e.g. he received clicks in the earpiece). (4) Marconi's later work exactly followed Hughes, Popov and many others. Marconi himself referred to Prof Hughes work in his speech to the IEE.

References. "A History of Wireless Telegraphy" by Fahie. "The Story of Wireless Telegraphy" by A.T.Story Page 108.

Gutta Percha (talk)

Again we see mindless deletions: Because you have an axe to grid you delete valuable material.

I suggest you actually do some research. Read the excellent Hughes book by Ivor Hughes and David Ellis Evans. Read the Fahie book. The astounding thing is that Hughes's original notes and models have recently been discovered and are now preserved in a British museum. You can go examine them for yourself. To claim that they differ in principle from Marconi's early efforts shows only that you have little real knowledge of radio. 49.48.104.210 (talk) 02:23, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree. I have removed the mindless note in ref 6 ["1878 is mentioned as the beginning of Hughes' research, possibly as a misreading of The Electrician 1899 source Scientific American:"] Hughes's original notes can now be examined, as well the record of his presentation to the Royal Society in February 1880. Gutta Percha (talk) 21:13, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Morse Code Modem[edit]

I have removed the rather idiotic claim that his printing telegraph was a "Morse Code Modem". It didn't use morse and it clearly wasn't a modem. Please refer to the excellent book by Ivor Hughes and David Ellis Evans which describes the device in detail. Gutta Percha (talk) 22:02, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nationality[edit]

Shouldn't he be listed as British-born American or British-American? He immigrated to the U.S. at the age of seven. Most sources I can find list him as American, including this Wikipedia article: SS David E. Hughes. Rsduhamel (talk) 15:26, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All the sources I see note David Edward Hughes' dual citizenship so we need to follow sources here. What to call him?: rough Google Books check "Anglo-American" 111 results, "British-American" 6 results, "Welsh - American" 4 results, "British born" 7 results. One of his three claims to notability, his Printing telegraph, puts him under "American" per WP:OPENPARAGRAPH, making him again "dual" per Wikipedia MOS. If there is an overall "Strunk & White" way to handle this then we can go with that. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 22:07, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I accept the dual description of him but Anglo-American is just plain wrong and the sources above probably use this terminology out of ignorance. We have sources clearly indicating that he was born in Wales but my dictionary describes 'Anglo' as 'denoting English or England'. Wales is not part of England but it is part of Britain. We should not propagate ignorance of the constituent countries of the United Kingdom in Wikipedia. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:33, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I won't bother to simply revert on WP:PROVIT, which you failed to do there. Actual sources (even "Welsh" ones) contradict "sources clearly indicating that he was born in Wales" [1][2][3] and the OED def of Anglo-American includes Britain and the US[4], although they may do that out of ignorance ;) Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:05, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As there does seem to be some doubt as to whether he was born on London or Wales there still could be some objection to 'Anglo' but 'British' is undoubtedly correct. Personally I have no objection to 'Anglo' but some editors may object to this on the grounds that it downplays his Welshness. I leave it up to you. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:28, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well.... being made up of all of the nationalities covered in any future argument, I refuse to change anything because I may go to war with myself ;) In other words I think your current edit of "British-American" is good. A change would be up to a future editor who can cite clear MOS on how people with such backgrounds should be referred to. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:01, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Co-invented the microphone?[edit]

The article body says he invented an improved version of Edison's carbon microphone. This contradicts the statement in the opening paragraph that he co-invented the microphone. Rsduhamel (talk) 15:33, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-obvious improvements to inventions are also inventions, and therefore "co-invented" is appropriate. "The microphone" is a functional name for a series of different inventions. Greensburger (talk) 15:47, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No this not right, he improved an existing invention. Although his improvements may have involved an inventive step and been patented that does not make him a co-inventor. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:33, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Teletype vs. Teleprinter[edit]

The word Teletype should be reserved to describe products that were produced by either the Morkrum Company or Teletype Corporation. In fact, the word Teletype did not come into English language usage until the early 1920s and was used to describe the Model 11. David Edward Hughes did pioneering work that led to the development of commercially viable teleprinters. However, Emile Baudot's five unit code and Charles Krum's and Howard Krum's the start-stop synchronizing method for code telegraph systems made possible the practical teleprinter.[1]

References

  1. ^ "U.S. Patent 1,286,351 filed in May, 1910, and issued in December, 1918". Retrieved 01 May 2012. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)

Far too promotional[edit]

The language used in much of this article is far too promotional and looks as if it has been copied directly from book on Hughes. I will tone ot down a bit. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:38, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Invention of radio"[edit]

I have further cleaned up on cleanups by Chetvorno by renaming and rewording this whole section and rewording the lead[5] because it was quite a WP:REDFLAG. Can't put these claims in Wikipedia's voice no matter how much some people want to believe them. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:06, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well done! Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:47, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. The claims that Hughes invented the first working radio communication system and the first microphone are clearly hyperbole that goes beyond the sources. I haven't been able to find anything about him inventing a diode detector. --ChetvornoTALK 17:36, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In that case you clearly haven't read the references, or visited the British museum to examine his laboratory models.

Read "Before We Went Wireless" by Ivor Hughes and David Ellis Evans.

He clearly used both a Coherer and a Point Contact detector to demodulate his waves. Your reference to "diode detector" only shows your lack of historical knowledge. Coherers and Point Contact detectors (eg cat's whisker) were used for many decades before the modern diode was developed 180.150.22.107 (talk) 06:01, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

EM induction[edit]

Why the argument ré: electeomagnetic induction vs "rádio wave reception"? ALL reception/detection of rádio waves IS electromagnetic induction. Hughes' device received the signal (acting as an antenna or aerial) and converted it to audible sound, which is a decoding or demodulation function, but ANY time a radiated EM signal is detected by ANY type of rádio receiver, there is induction involved. I think some of you are arguing a distinction sans difference.

There is a generally accepted difference. What we would now refer to as near-field capacitive or inductive coupling are what was meant by 'induction'. These processes were well known at the time of Hughes and had been demonstrated experimentally so it was, probably incorrectly, assumed that that was what Hughes was doing at the time. EM waves (what we would now call far field) had not been observed at the time of Hughes only theoretically predicted by Maxwell. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:41, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And, as long as I'm sounding off, OF COURSE the devices were crude! Radio Shack and Heathkit were a bit hard to come by in the 19th century. The inventions were all the more remarkable for making use of nails and screw-heads, an exploration and innovation of the principles of physical phenonena. OF COURSE Edison deserves credit for devices developed, but there is credit to go around: too much emphasis on who was FIRST obscures and obfuscates that technology often progresses in a crowd-sourced fashion: when several pieces of knowledge and technology are available to several informed and prepared minds, more than one person can put the pieces together and "invent" independantly, but, though there be NO stealing of ideas, none of us work in a vacuum. "We stand on the shoulders of giants.". There is a very basic concept in ethnology: the canoe was invented independantly in various parts of the world. American Indians didn't necessarily "steal" or "copy" the idea from Africans. The problem is a body of water to be crossed, or fished, etc. There are a limited number of solutions to the problem using the technology and materials available. And what English-speakers call a canoe can vary vastly. A log 'dugout' is nothing like the seagoing outrigger canoes of the south Pacific. Limitations of LANGUAGE apply to radio and computer technology as much as to anthropology. Rags (talk) 11:57, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that you edit the article to correct any problems that you see, taking care not to make it over-promotional of Hughes, and then see what others think. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:44, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As Martin Hogbin says, there is a big difference between electromagnetic induction and electromagnetic radiation. Induction was a well-known effect that had been discovered by Faraday in 1831. A number of inventors had tried to use it for wireless communication but had found it is not a long-range effect.
The problem is with the words "invent" or "discover". A number of people before Hertz, like Hughes and Edison, observed the effects of what we now know were electromagnetic waves, without understanding it or exploiting it practically. Crediting those people with "discovering" radio waves or "inventing" radio is WP:UNDUE WEIGHT, it creates a false balance (see VALID), implying that their work was as important as that of Hertz or Marconi. Hughes did not know what he was observing, did not do extensive research, did not publish his results, did not use it for a practical purpose, and accepted a wrong conclusion about what caused the effect. The existing language in the article describes his contribution accurately as the "observation" of radio waves. Rags, the case is totally different from your example of the canoe, where separate groups developed a technology for practical use in parallel. --ChetvornoTALK 18:51, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have to admit my ignorance and my error here. My electronics/physics training is obviously incomplete: I was totally unaware of this distinction. Humble thanks, guys. I DID come here primarily to learn. Rags (talk) 13:27, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on David Edward Hughes. 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) 20:53, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on David Edward Hughes. 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) 18:21, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:David_Edward_Hughes&oldid=1202832772"