Talk:Telephone

Russian telephones

Why? Phones are no different in Russia then they are in Europe or North America. Why should one area deserve more attention or be given special attention?

---

Nothing is mentioned about the evolution of Telephony and telecom in the (former) USSR and now in Russia and independent Republics. It seems to me that everything can not be generalized, over there is also technological revolution and it is certainly different that the American and other European systems.

Agreed, but a link to "History of the telephone in the former USSR" or something is rational. Adding it to THIS page is not. This page needs to be a nexsus of a cluster of pages about telephony. Rick Boatright 15:49, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Split page?

Maybe this page should be split into sub-pages?

Proposed page-split:

• there is already a link to the non-existant invention of the telephone
• I think we need telephone standards as a page

Would those two things shorten the page enough to get it to reasonable? Or is it better to leave this long version all here? Rick Boatright 15:36, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Alexander Graham Bell -centrism

It's typical American to say that Graham Bell is considered the Inventor of the telephone. Cause in other parts of the world he is not.

Meucci invented the telephone but it was Bell who was first to patent the idea. I read somewhere that the US Congress acknowledged that Meucci infact was its inventor.

Not exactly. The resolution was more vague than that. There is a separate article about inventing the telephone. Gray and Bell are in this article for starting the industry, rather than for inventing the telephone. Jim.henderson 06:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Chinese telephones

The source about the chinese invention should have been publicated in Peking Gazette from 1878, but it has not been revealed yet. So if you have access to that paper, i.e. live in China or something, (if it still exists), please have a look at it. An other source is 25th august, 1878, Journal Télégraphique.

Antonio Meucci recognized as official inventor of telephone

I see in both this article and the Alexander Graham Bell article that supposedly, in September 2001, Antonio Meucci was recognized by Congress ad the inventor of the telephone, being that he created the device in 1849. However, I have searched on this topic and have been unable to find any article on an official government site that states this. I was able to find a supposed document from the House and Representatives on a site, but it had no link to any original source from a government site. I also searched extensively on Antonio Meucci, Alexander Graham Bell and Telephone on both the US Copyright Office website and the US Patent Office website. I was only able to find a patent for the telephone which stated the patent holder as being Alexander Graham. If someone could point me to an article on an actual government site, I would appreciate it. Otherwise, I don't think that should be mentioned on Wikipedia in any article.

Antonio Meucci

June 11, 2002, the United States Congress passes Resolution 269, recognizing Italian-American inventor Antonio Meucci as the true inventor of the telephone. (http://www.garibaldimeuccimuseum.org/congress.html)

• There were many 19th century mechanical telephones such as that patented by Nathan Stubblefield which worked like the "tin can telephone" used by kids. The sound vibrations strike a diaphragm are conveyed over the string or wire, and are audible at the other end when the string or wire vibrates the diaphragm there. When carefully constructed, these can function over a great distance, even over pulleys for direction change, like the bell pulls used to signal servants' quarters from bedrooms or dining rooms in 18th and 19th century homes. Meucci could have talked to his wife from another part of the house via a speaking tube, such as was commonly used in apartment buildings between the lobby and the apartment, or in a ship between the bridge and engine room, or by using a mechanical telephone. That is a more parsimonious explanation of how he spoke to his sick wife upstairs from the basement, if in fact he did so, than that he anticipated the many years of research it took decades later to develop the Bell instrument. Edison 18:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Meucci created and patented a telephone five years before Graham-Bell patented his. Meucci sued Graham-Bell but died as the case was still going on and the credit for the invention was given to Graham-Bell. (unidentified)

Meucci never patented the telephone and did not apply for a patent on the telephone. In December 1871 Meucci filed a caveat for "Sound Telegraphs" which I have not seen, but reportedly shows electromagnetic instruments very similar to Bell's. A caveat was like a provisional patent application without claims and expired after one year unless it was renewed by paying a renewal fee. A caveat could be converted into a patent application by filing claims and paying another fee. Meucci renewed his caveat in 1872, 1873, and 1874, but did not renew it in 1875. According to Zenas Wilber, the patent examiner who handled both Meucci's caveat and Bell's patent application, "had Mr. Meucci's caveat been renewed in 1875, no patent could have been issued to Bell." Meanwhile, Meucci was being granted respectable patents 168,273 (1875) and 183,062 (1876) for a method of testing purity of milk and a hygrometer for measuring relative humidity. Hence, Meucci protestations of poverty do not hold up. What probably happened was Meucci's patents may have been financed by an investor who paid the lawyers and Patent Office fees to acquire Meucci's patents, but refused to pay for a telephone patent, just as Samuel S. White was financing Elisha Gray's patents but refused to pay for a telephone patent. By 1875 Meucci did not see any prospect of getting someone to finance a telephone patent and so he abandoned his caveat at just the wrong time. Because Meucci's caveat was still unpublished, it was not "prior art" and Bell was able to patent the same invention. Greensburger 18:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Alexander Graham Bell

With all due respect, aside from a resolution of the US house which merely states that Meucci's "work in the ivention of the telephone should be acknowledged" it is Bell who is still widely credited with the invention of the telephone at least in the English speaking world. The passage of one non-binding resolution of one half of one branch of one government (that is the House (not the whole congress) of the United States) does not justify this article stating that Bell is not the inventor of the telephone. Moreover, the House resolution only states that his work be acknowledge, he is not explicitly credited with the invention of the device. - Jord 17:58, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The fact that most of the people think that is bell the inventor of the telephone doesn't mean anything, the telephone's invention affair has been discussed for a long time.

The fact that only a branch of the governement has voted can be considered pure patriotism.

The worst thing is that accordingly with official biography of Meucci the invention has been stolen by Bell and it's not Bell that dicovered the telephone later.

The decision of the house of US governement is to admit on the base of a huge quantity of historical evidences how the things really went.

In Italy it's already known to be Meucci the inventor and other countries simply have no interest in the case.

In case of no replies I'm going to change the incipit of the article in a more NPOV way.

--Zimbricchio 8 July 2005 10:37 (UTC)

For Ghu's sake... the article lists a HUGE BUNCH of people who worked on Phones. _NO ONE_ "invented the telephone." It was a multi-year collaberative effort involving a LOT of people on several continents. Bell, arguably, brought all that together (most notably Gray's liquid microphone) and create a PHONE COMPANY... but the thought that Bell and Watson invented the telephone "de novo" is just silly. The legal record is quite clear albeit complex, the historical record, because these Bozo's kept making their claims in NEWSPAPERS is very very very confused and clouded since people would make all SORTS of claims that weren't real in the papers. Bottom line, no one person invented the telephone. lots of people, Reis, Meucci, Bell, Grey, Edison, Hughs, Boursel, Varley _all_ contributed to that invention. What's really interesting, ofcourse, isn't the invention of the telephone, it's Bell's putting it all together and creating a successful telephone COMPANY. batteries, switches, operators, instruments, the rental thing, the patents... Hell of a thing. Rick Boatright 8 July 2005 13:52 (UTC)

Is the problem here a misunderstanding of the term telephone. In its actually definition of a device that converts sound into a form that can be transmitted long distances, and thus was clearly not invented by Bell. But the term telephone is represented in popular culture as something that allows you to speak to someone a long distance away and have a conversation. Bell was the first person to build a device to do that wasn't he? Ajmayhew 07:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

It depends on how long is "a long distance". All of the early telephone inventors had a problem finding an efficient transmitter (microphone) and an efficient receiver. Supporters of Reis argue that Reis was the first and he had witnesses who could hear and understand transmitted human speech. But Reis thought his microphone interrupted the current like a buzzer and that discredited him and his witnesses. Bell finally suceeded in transmitting clear speech on March 10, 1876 in his famous "Mr. Watson, come here, I want you." message, but Bell used the liquid transmitter invented a few weeks earlier by Elisha Gray and Bell used an electromagnetic receiver described in one of Gray's earlier patents. The Bell Telephone Company almost went bankrupt because Bell lacked an efficient microphone. Edison invented the carbon microphone, and three other inventors Francis Blake, Emile Berliner, and Henry Hunnings, whose patents were bought by Bell, developed an improved version that saved the Bell company from extinction. The best one can say about Bell was he was the first to be granted a patent that claimed the essentials of a practical telephone. Some of that was his lawyer's doing. The actual invention of the first practical telephone using a carbon granules microphone and an iron diaphragm electromagnetic receiver was the work of several others. Greensburger 03:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

January 2006,

Sure a lot of people created the telephone, but after Meucci! Do you want to see one of the telephones created by Meucci? Try going to Tuscany, Italy, at the theater called TEATRO LA PERGOLA. You can find a telephone created before 1833. Meucci, from 1849 started to create and produce over 30 different models of telephones, even a telephone to use under the sea. How old was Bell the thief in 1849? and the others? If you cannot find something on the subject is due because you speak english only. Try reading http://www.radiomarconi.com/marconi/meucci.html

In 19th century patent litigation, it was common for those who wished to cash in on someone else's invention to make similar devices to the successful invention and claim they were old, when in fact they had merely tinkered unsuccessfully. They would even bring in family members and old neighbors to swear they saw the device in operation decades before. Claiming that there is an 1849 telephone in a theater in Tuscany would be more convincing if it was described in credible sources, and if there were some publications from around 1849 mentioning its successful operation. Nationalistic pride is not a substitute for proof in the form of verifiable sources. Lots of mid-18th century experimenters built things that made noise, but no one before Bell understood that intelligible speech required a contunuously variable electical current to mirror the acoustic waveform of the speech, thus they built "make and break" transmitters. Edison 18:39, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Thief and Liar

What do you mean with "credible sources"? If you don't believe go there and see with your own eyes. In Tuscany the telephone exists. Or go to Cuba. Isn't LaCorte a reliable source? Did you read John LaCorte? The president of the American IHS said: <<We can only credit Mr. Bell with commercializing the invention of Meucci. In the tradition of fair play and honesty, let Meucci have the honor to be recognized as the "Father of the Telephone" in the encyclopedia. Let Mr. Bell have the money.>> And about the US House of Representatives with the House Resolution # 269, 107th, did you read it? "Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives to honor the life and achievements of 19th Century Italian-American inventor Antonio Meucci, and his work in the invention of the telephone. Whereas Antonio Meucci, the great Italian inventor, had a career that was both extraordinary and tragic; Whereas, upon immigrating to New York, Meucci continued to work with ceaseless vigor on a project he had begun in Havana, Cuba, an invention he later called the `teletrofono', involving electronic communications; Whereas Meucci set up a rudimentary communications link in his Staten Island home that connected the basement with the first floor, and later, when his wife began to suffer from crippling arthritis, he created a permanent link between his lab and his wife's second floor bedroom; Whereas, having exhausted most of his life's savings in pursuing his work, Meucci was unable to commercialize his invention, though he demonstrated his invention in 1860 and had a description of it published in New York's Italian language newspaper; Whereas Meucci never learned English well enough to navigate the complex American business community; Whereas Meucci was unable to raise sufficient funds to pay his way through the patent application process, and thus had to settle for a caveat, a one year renewable notice of an impending patent, which was first filed on December 28, 1871; Whereas Meucci later learned that the Western Union affiliate laboratory reportedly lost his working models, and Meucci, who at this point was living on public assistance, was unable to renew the caveat after 1874; Whereas in March 1876, Alexander Graham Bell, who conducted experiments in the same laboratory where Meucci's materials had been stored, was granted a patent and was thereafter credited with inventing the telephone; Whereas on January 13, 1887, the Government of the United States moved to annul the patent issued to Bell on the grounds of fraud and misrepresentation, a case that the Supreme Court found viable and remanded for trial; Whereas Meucci died in October 1889, the Bell patent expired in January 1893, and the case was discontinued as moot without ever reaching the underlying issue of the true inventor of the telephone entitled to the patent; and Whereas if Meucci had been able to pay the $10 fee to maintain the caveat after 1874, no patent could have been issued to Bell: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that the life and achievements of Antonio Meucci should be recognized, and his work in the invention of the telephone should be acknowledged." Isn't it a credible source? Have you ever studied/read the life of Meucci? http://www.esanet.it/chez_basilio/us_bell.htm Italy, Cuba and USA. In three different nations Meucci tested and showed his different devices, starting from 1833-4 (Bell didn't exist) to 1861 (Bell is only 14 years old!). As you can see, "Nationalistic pride" stop you and people like you to accept the truth. Bell was a liar and thief. He invented nothing. Jack 23:00, 26 January 200 (UTC)

Terri Pall vs. George H. Sweigert for credit for invention of cordless phone.

Does anyone have a US Patent Number from 1965 for Teri Pall's invention of the cordless phone? There was another inventor, George H. Sweigert, that filed in May of 1966 and received a patent in June 1969 that I found. The patent is listed in the patent section. I have had this question up about trying to find Teri Pahl's patent now for about a year with no one responding to it. The section of cordless phone crediting Teri Pahl has been added since but with no citation.

the following:

====Teri Pall====

"At a time when most people unthinkingly make phone calls from their cell phones wherever they happen to be, few know that the first cordless phone was invented by a jazz musician named Teri Pall. She invented the cordless phone in 1965 but could not market her invention as it had only a two mile range. Although she sold her rights to the cordless phone, Teri Pall is recognized as having revolutionized cordless communications." [1]

was a direct quote from the link included, and thus a probable copyvio. Also, since it was in the middle of the 1870's stuff, if we WANTED to include it it would go further down the page under Cordless Phones in the 60's....Rick Boatright 02:43, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Cordless phones that only go to the front yard sell pretty well. There must be other reasons her invention failed.--Gbleem 12:45, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Etymology

Is phone really a Greek word? www.danon.co.uk

Yup. It comes from the Greek words Tele, meaning distant, and phonos, meaning voice. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 06:17, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

overdue cleanup

Added cleanup tag at top. THis article is a mess. I've moved the invention of the telephone stuff to the pre-existing link Invention of the telephone. I move the Tesla stuff, which was about radio, to the appropriate radio pages. I put in a short exerpt from Timeline in place of the long history thing. At a minimum, this article needs a description of how a telephone WORKS...... See Telegraph for an example of what this article needs to become. Next in plan... move the huge lists of stuff to "list" pages. Rick Boatright 8 July 2005 16:11 (UTC)

Revert Linkspam???

User Mendel did a massive revert of many editors work, reverting all the way back to the Revision as of 18:55, 29 March 2005, calling it linkspam.

I re-verted that.... Rick Boatright 22:08, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

As I already explained on my talk page, it was not intentional. Don't worry, mistakes happen -- that's why there's a page history. — mendel ☎ 16:19, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Echo

I quote from the book "Understanding Telephone Electronics" by John L Fike Ph.D, PE. Adj Professor of Electrical Engineering, Southern Methodist University, Staff Consultant , Texas Instruments Learning Center. and George .E. Friend, Consultant, Telecommunications, Dallas, Texas and Staff Consultant, Texas Instruments Learning Center. Chapter 1, page 15.

"The amount of echo delay depends upon the distance from the transmitter to the point of reflection. The effect of the delay on the talker may be barely noticable to very irritating, to downright confusing. Echo also affects the listener on the far end but to a lesser degree. Echos are caused by mismatches in transmission line impedances which usually occur at the hybrid interface between a two wire line and a 4 wire transmission system. The effect of echo is reduced by inserting a loss in the lines." (Italics and bolding all mine). I rest my case, but an admission of error and an apology from Omegatron would be nice.Light current

Not that I want to insert myself into the middle of an argument, but I don't see where Omegatron has made any recent edits to either the Telephone article page or this talk page. Can you give us some context for what's being discussed here?

Atlant 21:48, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Photo request

With all those pictures, would it be possible also to have one of a phone with a round dial? For most of their history, that was the way telephones were built, but kids today have never seen one. Also, there ought to be a date attached to each photo. The legend "telephone" is pretty unhelpful; "telphone, 19xx" would tell us something. --Doric Loon 06:48, 11 October 2005 (UTC) --Johnhardcastle 11:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)that would be nice

Request for clarification

What is telephony? Why am I redirected here from telephony? 66.215.181.211 00:11, 19 October 2005 (UTC)Eric

Telephony should probably be mentioned with a link to the dictionary. --Gbleem 12:47, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Redirect

I noticed while searching through List of HTML decimal character references that ☎ is a redirect to Telephone. While I don't suppose it does any harm, is there any use to this redirect? smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 16:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd guess that it's just humour. There are a fair amount of humourous redirects laying around Wikipedia and it's certainly not likley to cause much harm.

Atlant 14:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

In answer to your question, it does have some uses. I saw this symbol being used in someone's signature as a link to their talk page. I wasn't sure what the symbol was supposed to represent, as it looked a lot like a gem or a loaf of bread. So I posted it in the URL and pressed "enter," but there wasn't a page about it (I didn't figure there would be.) nor a redirect. To find out what it was, I had to post it on Microsoft Word and enlarge it to a size 72 font. This redirect saves overly curious people the trouble of having to open up MS Word, post the symbol there, highlight it, and then enlarge it. It is kind of humorous, too. ⇒ JarlaxleArtemis 03:43, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

There's also ☏. ⇒ JarlaxleArtemis 04:52, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Handset/headset jack? =

I came here looking for it. i will keep loking and if i find someinfo i will post an article about it here, but if it never get created, someone can fill this up. I'm talking about the jack that connects the wired telefone to the headset, the one that looks like a rj11 but with 4 spaces all filled with 4 connectors (probably fase/neutral for speaker and mic)

A lot of folks refer to this as an RJ11 handset plug, but I suspect (along with you?) that's not technically correct. A few folks call it an RJ09 but RJH is another term; neither seems to appear in the USOCs; Wiki's Registered jack article discusses this.

Atlant 14:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Is there a calling/communication by telephone article?

I'm looking for an article covering international calling habits. Can someone give me a hint where to look for it? --Gneer 15:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Sharing telephone lines

Is there a wiki page about line sharing (as featured in the movie Pillow Talk)? Apparently this used to be common at least until the 1960s. —Tobias Bergemann 11:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

See Party line#Telephony. And if that isn't already linked from the Telephone article here, could you please be bold and find a place to make reference to that?

Atlant 12:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

contradiction timewarp

"1861 Reis manages to transfer voice"

Later it says

"1875 Alexander Graham Bell first transmits voice."

"first" implies a timewarp here. One might take away the word "first", or make it clear what the difference is.DanielDemaret 15:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Reis' phone was designed to do make and break transmission, so that the tone quality and volume were not transmitted, only the frequency, that is, pitch. Yet one could recognize it was a voice, and perhaps make out the word being said. Yet it was not considered "articulate speech" and many different words or phonemes might be indistinguishable. Butu to cloud the issue, Berliners phone was like Reis' transmitter would be isf it were adjusted so the metal contacts were loosely touching, so that the resistance decreased and increased with sound vibrations. Berliner improved on Reis design/. The Edison improved further by using carbon contact instead of metal to metal. Berliner's or Reis' would not stay in adjustment and only worked sporadically, but Edisons was louder and worked more consistently with better articulation. Blake improved on Berliner by adding carbon (after Edison). Incremental improvements continued.Edison 03:16, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Micky Mouse phones

I think there needs to be a section on Micky Mouse phones. What do you think? It might make it a bit more interesting!

Salutation

Is it true that Bell proposed that the standard salutation when answering a phone be "Ahoy-hoy"? --71.98.12.111 21:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

My understanding was he just recommended "Ahoy." The Simpsons Mr. Burns says "Ahoy-hoy" when answering the phone, likely a reference to Bell's recommendation. AnthonyMartin 05:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

OK Then who came up with answering the phone with "HELLO"? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.58.243.54 (talk • contribs).

sorry

sorry for acidently putting something i wanted to type on the disscusion page on the wrong page, but im new to using discustion pages(and sorry for my bad spelling but i only have 2 munutes left), but the pictures for 2 (or so) of the older phones are quite bad (bad angles)(im talking about the first picture in particular)(and i cant change them myself because everything i do turns out to be a disaster) --Yet-another-user 14:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Edison's telephone patents

The patent application Edison filed on April 27, 1777 did not include an induction coil and did not use the word "carbon". It did use the words "plumbago and equivalent material". Plumbago is graphite which is a form of carbon, but not the amorphous carbon that was successfully used a year later. I removed the references to induction coil and added patent references. Greensburger 05:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

History

We need a proper article at History of telephone.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Replaced Chuck Norris with 'Antonio Meucci demonstrates a device later called a telephone' under 'Early Development' as the Timeline shows. I hate Chuck Norris nowadays, i never found him that great anyway.User:Desolationwilliams 17th November 06 16:45pm GMT

Vandalism?

Please explain the entry under "Early history": Was there an inventor named Chuck Norris and the article simply contains a link to the actor of the same name? -> we need disambig page

Or is this simple vandalism? Tierlieb 10:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Where are you seeing that? Wahkeenah 12:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

That was just vandalism.

Atlant 12:48, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Power

You would think that the article would explain why an ordinary house telephone can be used during a general power outage. Is it interesting to know the source of your telephone's electric power?Lestrade 18:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)Lestrade64.12.116.10 18:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

This is your chance to be bold!

By the way, for a long time, my house phone didn't work during power failures, apparently because my local phone company didn't realize that the batteries had died in their SLC-96 neighborhood concentrator, and the dang thing was only runnable when the line (mains) power was available. :-)

Atlant 18:51, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Two "See also" sections

There are two "See also" sections in this article. Shouldn't they be merged? JIP | Talk 11:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I did the merge and pointed to "History of telephone" disambiguation page which is a collection of see alsos. The history buffs and the current technology buffs are mostly different people and so it is better to keep most of the history stuff off the main Telephone page, except for the brief History section. Greensburger 16:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

External Links

These links were deleted from the Telephone article:

• The Telecommunications History Group, Inc.
• 1906 telephones and equipment (Swedish) Kungliga Telegrafverkets apparater (Royal Telegraph Administration apparatus) at Project Runeberg - digitized images of telephone and switchboard equipment
• Howstuffworks.com article on telephones
• CBC Digital Archives - Canada Says Hello: The First Century of the Telephone

Omitting external links with advertising, I think the following two should be restored because they contain interesting historical information and links to pictures and other information on early telephone equipment:

• The Telecommunications History Group, Inc.
• CBC Digital Archives - Canada Says Hello: The First Century of the Telephone

Greensburger 22:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Can you cite them as references at the appropriate point in the article? Wikipedia isn't a directory, and having an external links section with a few resources (even good ones) is an open invitation for people to add their favorite linkspam. Jehochman (^Talk/_Contrib) 00:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

What's a handset?

Someone asked me today for the correct words for the various parts of an ordinary 20th Century desk telephone, having found no satisfaction in the Wikipedia article. That's what this article needs. Too much space here is about deep questions of invention and early development, and not enough about what is a telephone and what are its parts. History is wonderful; most of it however belongs in history articles rather than one that will be first found by the curious, ignorant majority who don't know whether "receiver" is the correct name for that thing shaped like a dogbone or dumbbell that they hold in their hand. 162.83.210.180 18:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

2, 3 or 4 elementary elements?

I figure, for the purposes of this article, the system has two elements: 1) Telephone 2) Connection Of course the ways these connections are made are wild and wonderful, but for this article they are all one element. This is, after all, an article about the telephone. Other articles are about patents, corporate skullduggery, time slot switching, paper vs plastic insulation and other important topics, but this one shouldn't go chasing wild and wonderful beasts across the county line and into someone else's article. There's plenty to say about the telephone itself, that isn't being said here. Jim.henderson 01:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Chopping out history

An anonymous editor today chopped away almost all historical sections. This was a basically good idea gone wrong by clumsy overdoing. I intend to chop more delicately in the next few hours, leaving a few items in the timeline that are relevant not to credit, but to the form of the telephone. "Who invented" is a matter best left to articles that already exist on that topic. Later on, I hope add more information about early telephones, such as power, transmitter type, ringing, 1 vs 2 vs 4 wire connections, telegraph keys built into the telephone set, separate ring boxes, etc. Jim.henderson 20:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Early commercial instruments

Ta-ta for now. Please feel free to trim, expand, correct, link or otherwise improve the new section. Jim.henderson 22:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Civil War

Is this 1933 Popular Science clip [2] just stating unsubstantiated claims, or was there really a telephone in use before the Civil War? AnthonyMartin 05:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

As mentioned in invention of the telephone non electric telephones were in use for centuries before electric ones. Jim.henderson 14:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Courtesy phones

I've looked all over the Internet and I can find very little information about "courtesy phones". I think it should be mentioned here somewhere. I'm still not completely sure what a courtesy phone is. --Max 19:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

And what is a "white courtesy phone"? --Max 19:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

You are entirely correct; it is an absence nearly as grievous as the one noted in the following section, and easier to repair. I just now created the courtesy phone article and hope others will expand, correct and improve it. Jim.henderson 00:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

How a Telephone Works

I believe this article needs a good, solid explanation of how a telephone works. Complete with a diagram or two. I was researching how telephones work (for a school project) and was astounded that Wikipedia didn't have this in its main page on telephones. My old set of encyclopedias is better in this respect! Though if there is a page that includes a nice explanation of how telephones work, I'd love for someone to connect me. :) Jedi Shadow 05:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Quite right. I can't help with a picture, but it seems proper to put together a text on the talk page and transfer it when it's ready. At that time it will be wise also to curtail the description of the two parts of the phone system. Jim.henderson 23:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Inside the telephone

The telephone handles two kinds of information: signals and voice. The signaling equipment consists of a bell to alert the user of incoming calls, and a dial to enter the phone number for outgoing calls. A calling party wishing to speak to another telephone will pick up the handset. The switchhook puts a resistance short across the wires, causing current to flow. The telephone exchange detects the current, attaches a digit receiver, and sends dial tone to indicate readiness. The user pushes the number buttons, which are connected to a tone generator in the phone, which generates DTMF tones. The exchange connects the line to the desired line and alerts that line.

When a phone is inactive, that is on hook, its bell, beeper or other alerting device is connected across the line. When someone calls this phone, the telephone exchange applies a high voltage pulsating signal, which causes the sound mechanism to ring, beep or otherwise alert the called party. When that user picks up the handset, the switchhook disconnects the bell and puts a resistance short on the line, confirming that the phone has been answered. Both lines being off hook, the signaling job is complete. The parties are connected together, and may converse.

The voice part of the telephone consists of a transmitter (often called microphone) and a receiver. The transmitter is basically a variable resistor, whose resistance varies in response to the acoustic pressure waves produced by the voice. The resulting variations in electric current are transmitted along the telephone line to the other phone, where they are fed into the coil of the receiver, which is a miniature speaker. The varying electric field in the coil causes it to move back and forth, reproducing the acoustic pressure waves of the transmitter. Thus, it speaks.

Oof, at a glance it appears complete. Anyone care to criticise and correct my spelling, level of vocabulary, technical knowledge, principles of organization, anything? Please? Nicer to do it here than wait until it appears in the article. Jim.henderson 00:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

"The hookswitch puts a short across the wires" ? That suggests less than a tenth ohm. Why not give the standard number of ohms or a range? "The transmitter is basically a variable resistor" ? That's what it was until phones with transistor amplifiers replaced the old carbon mics. Greensburger 05:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

All right; I seem to recall that it was 300 ohms, but don't know whether that was standard even in the Bell System, much less around the world, so I just corrected "hookswitch" to "switchhook" and added the term "resistance short". I don't know how many different kinds of transmitter are in use now, and am undecided whether to qualify the Edison microphone with some term like "until the late 20th century" or replace it with a less precise, more general yet clear description. I'll get some sleep on it and maybe wake to see that someone has proposed the perfect phrase. Anyway, thanks for the suggestions. Oh! Is there no switchhook article? Jim.henderson 07:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, nobody rewrote it for me, so here's a second draft and I hope it's not getting too long. Jim.henderson 23:40, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

The telephone handles two kinds of information: signals and voice, at different times on the same twisted pair of wires. The signaling equipment consists of a bell to alert the user of incoming calls, and a dial to enter the phone number for outgoing calls. A calling party wishing to speak to another telephone will pick up the handset, thus operating the switchhook, which puts the telephone into active state or off hook with a resistance short across the wires, causing current to flow. The telephone exchange detects the DC current, attaches a digit receiver, and sends dial tone to indicate readiness. The user pushes the number buttons, which are connected to a tone generator insde the dial, which generates DTMF tones. The exchange connects the line to the desired line and alerts that line.

When a phone is inactive, that is on hook, its bell, beeper or other alerting device is connected across the line through a capacitor. The inactive phone does not short the line, thus the exchange knows it is on hook and only the bell is electrically connected. When someone calls this phone, the telephone exchange applies a high voltage pulsating AC signal, which causes the sound mechanism to ring, beep or otherwise alert the called party. When that user picks up the handset, the switchhook disconnects the bell, connects the voice parts of the telephone, and puts a resistance short on the line, confirming that the phone has been answered and is active. Both lines being off hook, the signaling job is complete. The parties are connected together, and may converse using the voice parts of their telephones.

The voice parts of the telephone consist of a transmitter (often called microphone) and a receiver. The transmitter, powered from the line, puts out an electric current which varies in response to the acoustic pressure waves produced by the voice. The resulting variations in electric current are transmitted along the telephone line to the other phone, where they are fed into the coil of the receiver, which is a miniature loudspeaker. The varying electric current in the coil causes it to move back and forth, reproducing the acoustic pressure waves of the transmitter. Thus, it speaks.

When one or both of the parties "hang up", that is on hook, no DC current flows in one or both lines and that signals to the exchange switch to disconnect both lines. Greensburger 00:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Y'know, it's looking pretty much complete to me. Tomorrow, if it still looks good, I'll use it to replace the "Telephone" section of the "Telephone" article (which is a dumb section name anyway). Please, as I said, give advice or simply improve this draft. And maybe there should also be a "Switchhook" article. Jim.henderson 23:40, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Forensically Victorious ?

What on earth does 'forensically' victorious mean in respect of the patents? Rob Burbidge 14:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

"Forensic: Relating to, or characteristic of, or used in, courts of justice or public debate". "Victor: One who vanquishes an enemy". Funk & Wagnalls Standard College Dictionary, 1963. Put it together and it designates the winning side of court cases. The linked Invention of the telephone article goes into more detail on the forensic victories, and I see no reason to describe those events at greater length in the present one. Jim.henderson 11:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Images? too much?

Does anyone else find the large ammount of images a little bit excessive? This image in particular seems completely unnecessary... -b 08:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. this one also seems unnecessary. Matteo (talk @) 08:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh man, that one's even worst. Unless someone objects soon, I don't see any problem with removing at least those two. I hate the stack at the top of the page though. -b 17:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

how o generate phone sounds?

i'm not asking this for illegal purposes - but it would be good to be able to reproduce the sounds that you hear on a telephone like the dial tone and the numbers you punch and the clicks of picking up and hanging up in a VST plugin or whatever that you can put into a musical sequencer program. those would be helpful sound effects to have since recorded phone conversations (which probably aren't genuine) are often put onto albums and things, for example Reanimation (album) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.15.164.253 (talk) 20:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC).

History

Although there is disagreement about if Bell "invented" the phone, don't you think we should have a blurb about his phone company, which became AT&T. I think its interesting how his company can still be linked to today. Posted something about this, but it was removed??? --Mike

There's a "see also" link to Bell system, which does look like a better place for such history. Dicklyon 05:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Trivia section

Following its removal and revert, I blanked the trivia section because everything in it was trivial and unsourced. Footnotes to wikipedia are not sources (see WP:V and WP:RS). And we aren't supposed to have trivia sections. So please, if you want any of these points back, find a source and put them into a reasonable place in the article, such as a new section or subsection not called "trivia" if they don't fit elsewhere. Dicklyon 02:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

*Telephone newspaper

• Telephone newspaper - add please Cryptographic hash 05:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

why is there no mention of granville t. woods ?

In 1884, Woods started his own company with his brother Lyates. They called it the Woods Railway Telegraph Co., and it made electrical telephone and telegraph equipment for the railway industry. An improved boiler furnace was one of their first inventions. American Bell Telephone bought another invention called "telegraphony," which allowed telegraph stations to send both voice messages and ordinary telegraph messages over the same wire.

In 1887 Woods invented the Synchronous Multiplex Railway Telegraph, a major breakthrough which greatly reduced railway accidents by allowing dispatchers to communicate with moving trains. This was the first time train operators had been able to give and receive information about their location that could be immediately passed on to other moving trains. This invention saved countless lives.

Sometimes inventors sue each other, each claiming that they had invented an item first. Thomas Edison sued Granville Woods twice and lost in court both times when Woods proved that his inventions were original and had been created independently of any influence from Edison's devices. After that the Edison Company made Woods a handsome offer for employment with their company, but Woods declined, preferring to remain independent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.185.157.11 (talk) 21:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Interesting fellow, but better suited to a biographical article than to this skimpy history of the telephone. This article quite reasonably doesn't attempt to list every historically significant but tangentially related invention; if it did then it would need sentences for telautograph, phantom working, and other developments that had significance in their own time but eventually reached a dead end. Heck, for good reasons this article doesn't even mention Milo G. Kellogg, whose divided multiple telephone switchboard is much more in the main stream of development that led to the modern PSTN. Perhaps Woods belongs more in a railway signalling article. Jim.henderson 15:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

telephone to phone. Wikipedia:Use common names. The device is nearly always referred to as a "phone". Voortle 22:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose - Not necessarily true. Phone is actually quite ambiguous (considering that it is a DAB page) and telephone isn't exactly obscure. Reginmund 15:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

When people hear "phone" they nearly always think of telephones rather than anything else. The current page phone should be moved to phone (disambiguation). Voortle 21:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• Again, that is not true. Please see the DAB page; I think you will find out why. Reginmund 01:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - Wikipedia:Use common names#Do not overdo it. phone leads to a disambiguation page. "Phone" is common but is a more an idiomatic shortening of the word "Telephone" and possibly an American regionalism. "Telephone" is a well understood term that is not ambiguous. --NrDg 17:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - Telephone is the proper term for the device. Phone may be a widely (bordering on universally used nickname, but as an encyclopedic term, phone has several other established meanings as you can see by the link. Leaving Telephone as one disambiguation term from Phone is completely appropriate. Arakunem^Talk 17:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - The nickname can point to this article. --Wtshymanski 18:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - At most, Phone (disambiguation) should merge into the current Phonetics Phone. Jim.henderson 17:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - Greensburger 19:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the cat template for Requested Move, since the consensus seems clear on this after 5 weeks listed. Arakunem^Talk 16:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Modern Day phone

By that I don't mean phones like the iPhone. I mean your basic wired phone.

You know that the thing that causes the phone to disconnect when you hang up? On the top left? If you hit it multiple times, it'll dial 911? Someone should put that in there. --HPJoker ^{Leave me a message} 20:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

That thing is called a "hook switch" because it still has an electrical switch and the old "candlestick" phone had a hook connected to the switch. Greensburger (talk) 05:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

"Basic principle" needs work

This section (and possibly others) needs work by someone familiar with electrical and electronic circuits.

For example: "... thus operating the switch hook, which puts the telephone into [an] active state or off hook with a resistance short across the wires, causing current to flow."

"Resistance short" - a phrase I've never come across in the over 40 years I've studied and worked with electrical, electronic and audio systems - is practically an oxymoron, since "short" (as in "short circuit") is used to describe a circuit of extremely low resistance. In general, a short is established when one conductor of an electrical source is connected to its reciprocal or complementary conductor with no intervening resistive or reactive components. (Electrical transmission and distribution systems typically use the earth as a conductor in addition to wire and cable. Hence a system conductor such as a wire contacting the earth, or a tree or other low resistance pathway to "ground", usually constitutes a short circuit.)

What we want here is something like: "... puts the telephone into an active state or 'off hook' by closing the circuit, allowing current to flow through the wires or "line" as well as through the transmitter (microphone) and receiver (speaker) of the telephone." (Unless "resistance short" is a common term in describing telephone circuitry, in which case it should be defined within the article.)

And a lot more changes.

Cheers! Rico402 (talk) 03:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

---

How about this:

A landline telephone handles two types of information: signals and voice, at different times on the same twisted pair of wires, the telephone line. The signaling equipment consists of a bell or other alerting device to alert the user of incoming calls, and a dial to enter the phone number for outgoing calls. A calling party wishing to speak to another telephone will pick up the handset, thus operating a button switch or "switchhook", which puts the telephone into active state or off hook by connecting the transmitter (microphone) and other voice circuitry across the line. This voice circuitry has a low resistance (less than 300 ohms) which causes DC current to flow through the line. The telephone exchange detects this DC current, attaches a digit receiver circuit, and sends a dial tone to indicate readiness. The calling party pushes the number buttons, which are connected to a tone generator inside the phone, that generates DTMF tones which are sent to the exchange. The exchange connects the calling line to the desired called line and sends a ringing signal on the called line.

When a landline phone is inactive (on hook), its bell, beeper, flasher or other alerting device is connected across the line through a capacitor. The capacitor prevents DC current from flowing through the line and thus the telephone exchange knows it is on hook and only the bell is electrically connected. When someone calls this phone, the telephone exchange applies a pulsating ringing signal (less than 30 volts AC) on the line, which causes the alerting device to ring, beep, or otherwise alert the called party. When that user picks up the handset, the switchhook disconnects the bell and connects the microphone and other voice circuitry of the telephone across the called line. This voice circuitry likewise has a low resistance which causes DC current to flow through the called line, thus confirming that the phone has been answered and is active. Both lines being off hook, the signaling is complete. The parties are connected together and may converse as long as both phones remain off hook. Greensburger (talk) 03:56, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

---

Better for sure... But how about, "Most landline telephones are designed to manage both audio signals (dial tone and other sounds) and alerting signals (bell, beeper, etc.) over the same balanced line usually consisting of a twisted pair of insulated copper wires."

But why?

• "Most landline telephones..." Well, anything's possible.
• Technically, both audio and ringer currents are electrical "signals".
• "at different times" unnecessary and inaccurate; a "call waiting" signal is an "alerting" signal transmitted while the phone is "active".
• We should perhaps convey that twisted pair cable is used to form a balanced line, minimizing electromagnetic interference and crosstalk (See Common-mode rejection ratio), and it doesn't hurt to mention what they're "usually" made of. (And there may still be some pairs of bare wires out there, running from pole to pole on glass insulators attached to wooden crossarms.)

Also, the following appears inaccurate: "ringing signal (less than 30 volts AC)". Ringer voltages I've measured have always been over 100 VAC. In fact, I once got "rapped" (shocked) pretty good when the ringer signal was activated on a phone line I was working on.

To satisfy my curiosity, I measured the voltages on my own phone line:

• The "inactive" voltages were 52 VDC and 114 VAC (I suspect for the DSL modem, although it was disconnected; current was too low to "feel" between my fingers);
• The ringer voltage was 162 VAC with no additional DC component; and
• The dial tone and pre-recorded audio voltages were both 9.4 VDC and 20 VAC.

Make of these whatever you will. If I get ambitious I may take some current readings. (I don't have an Amprobe so I'll have to place the meter probes in series with phone line, which will be a pain; meter rated 200 mA max, hope that's sufficient.)

Should probably read "which configures the telephone into an active state or 'off hook' by placing the audio circuit across the line. The audio circuit has a low resistance...".

Closing the switchhook reconfigures the phone's circuit as seen by the exchange, audio signals are not limited to "voice" and the "microphone" is a part of the audio circuit; although it might be helpful to put "(microphone, speaker, etc.)" after "audio circuit".

Maybe, "Both lines being off hook, the signal path is complete." (Technically more accurate.) And change redundant "parties are connected together" to just "parties are connected".

I'm sure I'll have more later. :-)

Nice work,

Rico402 (talk) 17:15, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

---

Why "landline telephones"? To distinguish over cellphones and VOIP. Many people today do not use landline phones and to them a telephone is a cellphone.

Yes, ringing signal more than 100 VAC. I knew 30 VAC was too low, but I couldn't remember what it was. I figured you would correct it.

"The audio circuit has a low resistance..." is ok, although the earphone was not connected across the line but rather was on the secondary winding of the anti-sidetone coil and now is driven by an IC. Greensburger (talk) 18:53, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

---

My asking, "But why?" was a rhetorical question as to why I had suggested the changes, which I attempted to answer in the list immediately below. But I can see how it may have been confusing. For example, I suggested adding "most" before "landline telephones" because the discussion that follows may apply to most but not all landline phones. Given the variety of devices that may terminate a landline, anything - or nearly anything - is possible.

With that explanation, maybe if you go back it'll make more sense. Hope that clears that up.

Regarding the placement of the earphone (earpiece, speaker; I think it's proper technical name is still "receiver") in the circuit, I would suggest for simplicity's sake to lump the microphone ("transmitter"), speaker and related components into a single "audio circuit" with a low DC resistance. (I say "DC resistance" because of the "impedance" across the line which would be factor in AC current flow. I think it keeps it accurate without confusing the masses and (overly) offending the experts. (And then there's the whole "ringer frequency" issue, especially as it had applied to "party lines" - think I'm correct on this; not sure. Save that for later.)

From my ancient 1975 New Age Encyclopedia (original copyright 1962): "Lifting the receiver from the hook or the handset from the cradle puts the transmitter in the line circuit, with the receiver connected in parallel on the condenser side and with an induction coil in series." (Vol. 18, p.5) A simple schematic is included. (I could hardly find anything re old fashion telephony in any newer texts.)

"[I]nduction coil" sounds redundant to me, but I don't generally don't call capacitors "condensers" either. ("Condenser microphones" being an exception; old conventions die hard.) My guess is that this is a very old circuit design, and I didn't even know old phones had an "anti-sidetone coil", which I'm guessing is a step-down transformer to reduce sidetone voltage, perhaps introduced when more efficient microphones became available.

My knowledge of what's actually "under the hood" is pretty basic, especially as regards to newer "electronic" phones, whereas thankfully you seem to have that area pretty well covered.

So I don't doubt you description of the receiver circuit, but technically, the entire "telephone set" (or more than one set, or a "system") terminates the line and is seen by the circuitry at the local exchange as a "resistive" load with respect to DC, but a "reactive" load with respect to AC.

Btw, we should probably explain, or at least mention, "pulse" make-and-break dialing, which the existing article curiously leaves out while discussing essentially antiquated technology. You probably have a better grip on this as well. (I used to amuse my friends, or maybe it was just myself, by dialing a phone simply by tapping out the numbers on the cradle switch. And it still works! he-he-he... :-)

When I have time I'll try to work up a draft incorporating our contributions that you can critique. I'd also like to cite references, but I'll probably have to find time to hit the library. (Unless say, AT&T's Web site has a comprehensive article; I'll look into that.)

Nice to communicate with someone who knows what he's talking about.

P.S. For clarity and readability, if you enter a string of about 4 dashes (hyphens) before your posts, Wiki's software will inset a line separating postings. (An asterisk or "star" adds "bullets" to paragraphs; a colon indents a paragraph. I'm just lately figuring this stuff out.)

Regards,

Rico402 (talk) 12:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

---

Cheers to those who edited this section - much more informative and accurate. However, I thought some additional info was needed, so I added "plain old telephone service (POTS)" at the top, and bits about "data communication" and "call waiting"; and expanded "pulse dialing". I also thought the use of the word "voice" was too limiting, so I changed it to "audio". I've executed some other edits for clarity and style which I hope you'll find satisfactory.

Regards,

Rico402 (talk) 21:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

---

Very clearly worded. Greensburger (talk) 00:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

---

Adjustment to POTS & EMI references; added "(48 volts, nominal)", link to "AC", and paragraph re trunk lines, fiber-optic cable, digital technology and satellite technology.

Not quite satisfied with the added paragraph or the one following (re communication between exchanges and over long distances; feel free to make adjustments/corrections as appropriate.

Rico402 (talk) 05:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Induction coil

This question isn't one of basic principle; it is a refinement. See Model 202 telephone as well as the "Early commercial instruments" section of the current article, though we ought to discuss more explicitly later in this article that the induction coil in middle 20th century phones combines the function of an impedance matching transformer for the carbon microphone with that of a hybrid transformer. Jim.henderson (talk) 12:28, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

---

Hope you don't mind I changed the subject heading.

Anyway, I agree that the multiple role of the induction coil should be discussed. In fact, I would argue that this article should include more technical information (and more accurate technical info; working on that), and a schematic or at least a circuit diagram to aid the reader.

But I'm curious as to why the transformers in a telephone (or "telephone set") are referred to as "induction coils". I'm guessing the term originally applied to coils with multiple windings used for inducing currents in secondary windings, maybe coined by Faraday before "transformer" was coined by whoever, and is retained by convention, and that the term was later co-opted for what had been called the Ruhmkorff or "spark" coil (see induction coil).

Also, in telephony does the term "induction coil" also apply to coils with single windings?

Regards,

Rico402 (talk) 15:57, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

---

A quick search through my pile of early telephone patents shows the term "induction-coil" in several patents:

Elisha Gray's (pre-telephone) patent 166,096 dated July 27, 1875 (application dated January 19, 1875) for transmitting musical tones, shows electric buzzers that produce tones and make-and-break currents in "induction-coil B that has the usual primary and secondary circuits" and "produce in the secondary circuit of the induction-coil a series of induced currents" in the telegraph line. "An ordinary electro-magnet is provided at the receiving end of the line... which reproduces the tone by being thrown into vibration."

Edison's patent 203,013 for a "speaking telegraph" filed December 13, 1877 shows "an induction-coil, consisting of one bar of iron and two coils m1 and m2, the latter being placed in the main line... m1 is the primary inductive magnet of very low resistance, placed in a local circuit".

Edison's patent 203,016 for a "speaking telephone" dated April 30, 1878 shows a carbon transmitter/microphone in series with "the primary circuit of the induction-coil D wound on the outside of the secondary coil E... for transmitting and receiving telephonically." "The carbon heretofore employed in connection with a [carbon] diaphragm is not adapted to use in the primary circuit of an induction-coil, because its resistance is too great, and the necessary rise and fall of tension [voltage] is not produced." Edison rejected a high resistance carbon transmitter "being in the main-line circuit" as described in his earlier patent application filed July 20, 1877.

It appears that as early as 1877, induction-coils were used for impedance matching, even though Edison did not call it that in these patents. Greensburger (talk) 20:56, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

---

So given that these patents all reference "primary" and "secondary" windings, it's a safe bet that in this context "induction coil" refers to what we call "transformers" in the modern lexicon, and not to single winding iron core coils. (Induction being the operative word, as in its simplest form, the primary induces a current in the secondary.)

Thanks,

Rico402 (talk) 15:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Uhh

When has the Nokia N-95 become a IP-based Wi-Fi telephone its just a HDSPA quad-band mobile/cell phone! Geoman888 (talk) 12:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Pulse dial

I note that the article describes only tone dial telephones. I have several pulse-dial phones which still worked on our local exchange (rural UK) last time I tried them. Has tone-dial now completely replaced pulse-dial throughout the world, or are there still countries or regions where pulse-dial is still used? Dbfirs 20:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

(answering my own question) - The answers are all in Wikipedia under pulse dialing. I'll add a link. Dbfirs 21:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Inside the telephone

As the original author of this section under its earlier name, I of course don't own it and anyway have been running off in the direction of photography instead of paying attention here. I notice the name was changed and the section much expanded. Neither of these is necessarily a bad thing, but perhaps some of the parts that venture outside of the telephone's case should be trimmed and linked more, or else the section subdivided before further expansion, or both. Just suggesting; beautiful weather has been driving me outdoors and the resulting photos make me too busy to do much writing myself. Jim.henderson (talk) 04:03, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

is this article semi-protected?

cause i don't see a lock icon on top right, and yet, i cannot edit...216.80.119.92 (talk) 10:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC)