|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day... section on February 14, 2005, February 14, 2006, and February 14, 2007.|
Bias in Article
is it me or does this page seem a bit bias? Swedishdave 16:48, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
It did seem a little biased at the end of the article, but appears more due to the way the sentence was written rather than any actual planned bias. But this article could also use some sources. --AeroKnight 18:42, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
I added a bunch of material to round out the biography and reduce bias, but sources on Gray are difficult to find. Google hits seem to be citing each other. Each of the references already cited: Evenson, Baker, and Coe has a section on Elisha Gray. Greensburger 15:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
- It's probably bias because it is a huge and powerful company (AT&T) that have profited from Alexander Bell's thievery. That kind of crookery changes history.(Sasquatchuk 12:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)}
- In Evenson's book, which describes the dishonesty of Bell's lawyers and examiner Wilber, Bell is not described as a thief or crook, but merely naive about the hidden activities of the lawyers Pollok and Bailey and other people who founded the telephone company in Bell's name. The lawyers were not working for Bell, they were being paid by Bell's father-in-law Gardiner Hubbard. Bell received only a few shares of stock in the telephone company. The pro-Bell bias in biographies of Bell and telephone histories was partly do to the Bell company requiring in contracts that the parties agreed that Bell was the inventor of the telephone. Although years later AT&T became a very powerful company, in early 1879 the Bell Telephone Company nearly went bankrupt. It was only because Thomas Edison or one of his workers invented the carbon microphone/transmitter that saved the Bell company from extinction. Greensburger 04:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Patent Dispute Unclear
I am sorry, but I find the section about the patent dispute very unclear as to who did exactly what first. Can somebody clear this up a bit? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 18:39, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
This struck me as interesting. I'm not sure how one would work, but it would seem (to me) to involve mercury. Thoughts?RSido 04:08, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- Acid. Users sometimes burnt their clothing; occasionally their skin, until the carbon button came along. I guess it belongs in one of the articles; maybe this one. Jim.henderson 17:08, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Elisha Gray and the telephone
This section begins:
Because of Samuel White's opposition to Gray working on the telephone...
Unfortuneately there is no mention of who Samuel White is and why he would have any influence over Gray's work. Should this opening sentence be removed or more information added? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcconkeyb (talk • contribs) 17:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I think they worked best using 3 wires. There was practically no delay time, just the time it took electricity to travel through wires. Unlike modern fax machines or email. I wonder if they are still being used somewhere. As recently as 15 years ago, I saw Telautograph systems in parking garages, and at a control tower at large Air Force base near the west coast. I am not sure why the AF used it, but it probably had something to do with security. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rcmpvernon (talk • contribs) 02:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC) I think they were for weather reports Rcmpvernon (talk) 01:56, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Re: Underwater Signaling Device
Gray's invention of a underwater signaling device is addressed in two sections of the article , "biography and early inventions" (next to last paragraph,last 3 sentences) , and also "Gray's further inventions" (next to last paragraph). Both seem to be unsourced and contain conflicting information about testing the device.
Could an editor please take a look at this and hopefully make some sense of it ?
Also the part about officers investigating his house and giving the invention to Oberlin College just raises questions that can't easily be explained since the information is unsourced.Jonel469 (talk) 21:41, 14 July 2011 (UTC)