Talk:Radio

Tesla Nonsense

"It's interesting to note that Marconi's first successful test was using a Tesla coil".

This is nonsense. Marconi's early tests used a simple induction coil known as a Ruhmkorff coil. Nothing remotely to do with Tesla. I have removed this spurious claim Gutta Percha (talk)

Radio amateurs

Main article: Amateur radio

Radio amateurs are individuals who have undertaken an examination to prove competance in the use of radio transmitters. They are licensed to operate on a number of allocated bands in the Radio frequency spectrum. The power of their equipment is restricted, and they must not cause interference to the reception of authorised broadcsasts. They may not broadcast themselves, or communicate with the public with their equipment. They are only allowed to communicate with other licensed operators. They are issued with a unique identifying call sign which must be sent at intervals during their transmissions. They are regulated by an International body which agrees the allocation of channels available to each individual country or region of the world.

non-communication radio

Radio communication redirects here. This indeed seems to be the main focus. But there's a creep up of non-communication uses of radio: Navigation, Heating, Radar, etc. So I propose moving these elsewhere (e.g., radio waves, radio spectrum#application, etc.) and requesting the article to be renamed to its redirect. Your thoughts? Fgnievinski (talk) 01:19, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Some ITU Terms and Definitions:

• Radiocommunication: "Telecommunication by means of radio waves" [pleashttp://www.itu.int/ITU-R/asp/terminology-definition.asp?lang=en&rlink={9909E104-6FAA-4C2B-9DE4-1B37823B6754}]
• Broadcasting: "A form of unidirectional telecommunication intended for a large number of users having appropriate receiving facilities, and carried out by means of radio or by cable networks. Note - In English, it should be assumed that 'broadcasting by radio waves' is intended where the word 'broadcasting' is used without qualification, unless the context indicates the contrary." [1]

So radio communication is understood to include one-way radio broadcast and two-way radio communication.

Specific proposals:

• move radio to radio technology
• repoint the radio redirect to radio (disambiguation)
• repoint the radio communication redirect to radio (disambiguation)

If I don't hear anything, I'll proceed with the moves above. Thanks. Fgnievinski (talk) 06:46, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Here are two definitions from authoritative sources demonstrating how "radio" alone, as in the present article's title, is not supposed to mean anything specific:

• Radio: "A general term applied to the use of radio waves. Pertaining to the use of radio waves." [2] ITU-R
• Radio: "pertaining to the use of radio waves" [3] IEC

Problem noticed here. This article is ill defined as just "Radio" - many things are radio and communication is one of them. Allot of the stuff listed under the History of radio and Invention of radio are actually history of Radio waves. The one biggy that is a stopper to moving this article is WP:COMMONNAME, everybody calls the communication stuff "radio"[4]. So on the fence leaning towards keeping communication at this article title. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 22:33, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

@Fountains of Bryn Mawr: Well, even "radio communication" doesn't necessarily mean radio-intervened human communication. So we have two main concepts, Radio communication and Radio science and technology:

• Radio communication: human or non-human; one-way (broadcasting) or two-way (talking)
  • Radio broadcasting: predominantly human one-way
  • Two-way radio, Mobile phone: predominantly human two-way, half- or full-duplex
  • Wireless telecommunication: predominantly two-way and non-human
• Radio science and technology
  • radio waves, radio frequency
  • radio transmitter, radio receiver

Radio could redirect to radio broadcasting, as this is the most common usage. Radio communication shall become a disambiguation page. The current version of radio would be renamed to radio science and technology. Thanks for your thoughts. Fgnievinski (talk) 01:54, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't see a great reason for splitting or redirecting or for other reasons making this a non article. Yes, in common usage there is a divergence between "radio" in the scientific sense of a particular radiation band (with many technological uses thanks to more than a century of thoughtful engineering), and "radio" in the narrow, pop-culture sense of its use for sound broadcasting. At present the article mostly deals with applications rather than science, and treats each application lightly, with links to detail articles. This method might be carried out more comprehensively and precisely, moving more material to the other articles, but I don't see a reason for an alternative approach. Jim.henderson 16:21, 21 November 2014‎

@Jim.henderson and Fountains of Bryn Mawr: The main current problem is that most incoming links think they're pointing to Radio (pop culture) when in reality the present article has grown into Radio (technology). They serve two different communities. Radio can redirect to Radio broadcasting, the most common usage; but I urge the separation of this WP:Chimera. The bad impact is seen for example in History of radio -- which "radio"? Without a title suffix, people will keep assuming that "everybody knows what a 'radio' is." Fgnievinski (talk) 18:35, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Still tired from real-life adventure last night, and doing more catching up than serious thinking. Anyway, incoming links can be sent to appropriate places. Several are really about a radio program in which case no automatic method will work and they need correction anyway. Bulking up the existing Radio wave might appeal to those who want a separate article about radio theory and engineering. What definitely does not appeal to me, is making another article without first examining existing ones for possible realignment.

health effects

shouldn't it be here somewhere? zlouiemark ^{[ T ] [ C ]} 16:46, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

In the narrow sense, radio is only one form of electromagnetic radiation, and the general topic seems adequately covered at Electromagnetic radiation and health. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:24, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Edison and Hughes

Per this edit and this edit, Wikipedia is based on current historical research, not interpretations of 1899 sources or 19th or early 20th century observations/conclusions reached by participants in some discovery. Also supporting source supplied here (History of Wireless) clearly states Hughes work was "similar to Edison's", that both were radio, and does not support the wording "others' claims are disputed". Current historical consensus that Edison, Hughes, and even Thomson/Houston were detecting electromagnetic waves (radio) is quite clear. Besides the "ieeeghn.org, IEEE Global History Network, Etheric Force" source supplied see:

• Encyclopedia of Radio by Christopher H. Sterling page 831
• History of Wireless by T. K. Sarkar, Robert Mailloux, Arthur A. Oliner, M. Salazar-Palma, Dipak L. Sengupta page 259
• Power Struggles: Scientific Authority and the Creation of Practical Electricity Before Edison By Michael B. Schiffer page 287
• George Westinghouse: Gentle Genius By Quentin R. Skrabec page 100
• The Business of Electronics: A Concise History By Anand Kumar Sethi page 22
• The Wizard of Menlo Park: How Thomas Alva Edison Invented the Modern World By Randall E. Stross page 47

Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 01:16, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with your claim that the link I originally provided and which you reference here implies that Edison was the first to investigate radio waves. 'Similar to' can mean any number of things, and it's pretty clearly stated earlier in that same book that Edwin Houston and Elihu Thomson (who later accredited Hughes with the discovery of radio waves) 'proved the same year that the sparks were actually oscillatory high-frequency electric currents'. Also, none of those books with the exception of the one I originally linked to are scientific textbooks or were written by scientists. But all of this is beside the point anyway, as according to this source here [5] on page 829 Edison wasn't even the first to notice the spark, and it had commonly been observed by telegraph operators for decades before. Plus, I have another source [6] which agrees with me that 'Edwin Houston and Elihu Thomson were correct' hence why I described Edison's claim as 'disputed'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SQMeaner (talk • contribs) 02:06, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't see anywhere where I stated Edison was the first. None of the people mentioned "investigated radio waves", they all, for one reason or another, miss-identified what they were observing. Historical matters are covered by historians, not specifically "scientists", and some of the authors cited here and in the article have electronic/engineering backgrounds. We again seem to be referencing a very old (1910) source and "Houston and Elihu Thomson were correct'" refers to their claim that Edison's apparatus could not rule out induction and therefor was not a scientific proof. It is not a statement that Edison did not detect electromagnetic waves (most agree he did). Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 02:45, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Who is 'most'? I can barely find any references to Edison and his work with regards to radio or his 'etheric force' outside of that IEEE article you linked to. I hardly think this qualifies as a consensus. I suggest you find an expert to verify your claims that Edison was transmitting electromagnetic waves (I've already made posts on several forums asking for an expert to weigh in on this debate).SQMeaner (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 02:55, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

You can always start with the W. Bernard Carlson reference cited (7 pages on it) and maybe Christopher H. Sterling? If professors with Ph.Ds are not enough not sure what you are looking for. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:02, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

I found a link written by a Michael E. Gorman here [7] and here [8] which also backs up my claim that Edison did not discover electromagnetic waves. He is also a university professor with a phD, so it still basically comes down to your word against mine. Furthermore, I did a bit of digging and found another useful link called 'Observations of electromagnetic waves before Hertz' [9] by Charles Susskind, who was, of course, a professor of electrical engineering at UC Berkeley. It goes into quite a bit of detail on this subject, and apparently Luigi Galvani was the first to notice a spark caused by an electromagnetic wave in 1780. You should probably update the radio page to reflect this. Also, before you bring it up, I did notice Edison was mentioned in the article and I would like to draw your attention to the statement that E. Thomson did refute Edison on page 36. Furthermore, I seem to have found another link from the same site you originally based your edit on here [10] which states that Edison's hypothesis was 'was in 1876 experimentally disproved by Eli Thompson'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SQMeaner (talk • contribs) 22:20, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, your right, Edison did not discover electromagnetic waves (as stated by me several times), but his experiment was producing electromagnetic waves as stated by me and Michael E. Gorman (please read the article) i.e. "no connection was made with Maxwell's theories". You seem to keep missing the point that "Edison's hypothesis" was not electromagnetic waves so that was not what Eli Thompson was trying to disprove, in 1876 tests for electromagnetism were non-existent. Thompson's disproof was to build an apparatus that showed two opposite induced currents did not spark (had polarity) so were caused by induction. This turned out to be a faulty "proof of induction". 1876 was 12 years before Hertz so what Thompson realized, later in life, was the sparks were being caused by electromagnetism and when he inserted sheets of metal to balance his circuits he accidental constructed a tuned radio circuit. That is what caused the behavior in the sparks, not induction (please see "Innovation as a Social Process: Elihu Thomson and the Rise of General Electric" By W. Bernard Carlson, page 62). Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 01:29, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

OK, I contacted Thomas A. White (the guy who did the Nikola Tesla article) and according to him Elihu Thomson and Thomas Edison did discover radio waves but they were not the first to do so. Could you please change the wording of the history section of the radio article and the radio timeline article to reflect the fact that they were not the first, as to me both of those articles in their current state seem to pretty heavily imply that Elihu Thomson and Thomas Edison were the first to discover radio waves.SQMeaner (talk)

I agree with Fountains of Bryn Mawr. His sources are more authoritative. Even if they weren't, SQMeaner, the sources you quote do not seem to state that Hughes and Edison did not discover radio waves, only that they did not recognise what they were. --Chetvorno^TALK 02:44, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Adding people to the list of "pre-Hertz observations" would be a good idea, within limits, we are getting into the world of WP:SYNC. It can and should be added straight away to Timeline of radio, it is just a list, Susskind and History of Wireless look like good sources (I recommended keeping that LIST article just because its a good place to flesh out missed items that could then be WP:SYNC'ed with Invention of radio (a bit out of sync right now). Radio may not need this information at all, it is a short summary and currently follows Encyclopedia of Radio by Christopher H. Sterling at this point. We could probably make Radio a little more "true" with the sentences:

• "In 1873 James Clerk Maxwell showed mathematically that electromagnetic waves could propagate through free space. The effects of electromagnetic waves (usual unexplained action at a distance sparking behavior) were actually observed before and after Maxwell work by many inventors and experimenters including Luigi Galvani (1789), Joseph Henry (1842), Edwin Houston, Elihu Thomson and Thomas Edison (1875) and David Edward Hughes (1878). Edison giving the the effect the name "etheric force" and Hughes went as far as building a wireless transmitter and receiver, but none could identify what cased the phenomenon and it was usually written off as electromagnetic induction."

Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:33, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

So do you think an edit should be made and, if you do, who should do it?SQMeaner (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 01:29, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

It looks like consensus and a good anti-bureaucratic move ;) so added it. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 14:23, 4 May 2015 (UTC)