Talk:History of radio
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is supported by the Radio WikiProject.
This project provides a central approach to Radio-related subjects on Wikipedia. |
|
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. | |
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, which collaborates on articles related to physics. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. [FAQ] | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating within physics. | |
|
Please rate this article, and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. |
||
[edit] FM move to 100 MHz
In the FM Radio section, this popped out at me:
- The reason the board made this decision was that it had been given flawed evidence by a former Federal Communications Commission engineer named Kenneth Norton. He believed that sunspots, which appear every eleven years, would cause severe disruption to the FM signal. Norton never explained why television signals at the same frequency wouldn't be disrupted.
I can see several reasons for this change. Perhaps Norton did as well and the reasons forgotten?
1) Armstrong 'set up shop' in the 42 MHz region because the vacuum tubes of the 1930s couldn't work reliably at higher frequencies. Also, since the range was less at the higher frequencies and the transmitters more expensive and weaker, he would have a smaller 'audience'. He was already struggling with the economics of that. At that time, the majority of the radio broadcast audience lived in rural areas, where AM was king. I'm amazed he could make it profitable with only city populations for his audience. (The pre-WWII FCC back then regarded the VHF range as wasted spectrum that would never be of any value, so they parked him there where he couldn't harm the much more valuable and socially important, to politicians at least, AM broadcast business.)
A side note: Frequency modulation at 42 MHz and lower was difficult to combine with carrier frequncy stability, too. Getting enough 'swing' while staying on frequency was a challenge, which gave Armstrong design difficulties. He eventually solved these with an expensive and complicated combination of phase modulation, large scale frequency multiplication and heterodyning.
After WWII, tremendous advances in vacuum tube performance allowed their use at microwave frequencies. Also inexpensive and stable transmitters could now achieve very high output powers at the VHF range. Since Armstrong donated the use of his patents to the government during the war, many engineers and scientists became very familiar with the theory and application, resulting in a cadre of experts that knew more than Armstrong about FM, receivers, transmitters and radio wave propagation. I suspect Norton was one of them.
Also the post-WWII FCC was far better staffed with competent engineers and they had to think about the future of radio in a way that benefited the public the most. During the war, the population left the rural communities for the urban manufacturing centers. This change in demographics was not lost on the Commission.
2) During sunspot cycle maxima, ionospheric reflections often cause long distance propagation events up to the 50MHz range. This happens much less often at 100MHz. Because the FM receivers used very wideband FM and employed very good limiters, capture effect would cause the sometimes stronger reflected signals to take over the receiver output as if a switch had been flipped. There was no apparent beat note, so no warning. Just from one second to the next, you'd shift from the local broadcast to one from hundreds to thousands of miles away. This wouldn't be apparent to the listener, it would just seem to him that his radio was broken, since there'd be no hint there was a second signal.
In television with AM video transmission, the onset of this sort of interference is easily seen when the signal strengths are more than a thousand times different, creating 'herring bone' or 'ghosting' effects on the picture. The television audio wouldn't be affected until the signals were nearly equal. The point is the viewer would notice the picture changing and not be alarmed once he had read the owner's instructions.
As far as the FCC was concerned, TV was a much more important development than anything in audio broadcasting (after all, everyone still had AM radios and the only thing FM added was fidelity, important for music lovers with 'golden' ears) since it was totally new and the social and economic impacts were sure to be enormous. They wanted the largest possible audence for each (very expenive) station, so they put the new channels in the low VHF range. It worked. 100 to 150 mile range was possible with an outdoor antenna. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Crusty Curmudgeon (talk • contribs) 13:09, February 29, 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Is this only history of radio in the US?
This article seems in parts to be very much the US story. The article on the BBC says that the BBC was founded in 1922 so would seem to deserve a place in the 'Radio broadcasting is born' section?
Also Digital radio is already up and running in the UK, so perhaps that deserves a mention.Billlion 14:47, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Things have improved, with more coverage of non-US milestones. Of course, a UK-centred view can be just as misleading, but the BBC was very significant. TV broadcasting, for instance, in the 1930s. Was it the first? What of the fuzzy line between experiments and regular broadcasts? But definitely regular scheduled TV broadcasting in the 1930s. Zhochaka 10:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Other articles...
There is also a history of broadcasting article that maybe should be merged or otherwise fiddled with to mix in with this. —User:Mulad (talk) 02:32, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)
- I agree, and while this article is still a mess, history of broadcasting is quite a mature article. Suggest moving anything of value in the current article to the history of broadcasting, and leaving history of radio as an article about the history of radio technology. Billlion 17:40, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- I have just added the cleanup tag. Part needs merging with history of broadcasting, perhaps what is left is the history of radio technology, would that be a better name for this article? Billlion 05:03, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
- The history of broadcasting article is much to broad and shallow to be more than a cursory summary of the topic. At a minimum it should link its sections to more detailed articles on history of radio, television, Satellite television, digital audio broadcasting, etc. (admittedly a number of these need work, and there doesn't seem to be a television broadcasting article yet.) --Blainster 15:47, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
- I have just added the cleanup tag. Part needs merging with history of broadcasting, perhaps what is left is the history of radio technology, would that be a better name for this article? Billlion 05:03, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
Don't forget the FM broadcasting in the USA article. ABostrom 20:16, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
Not even a mention of Mahlon Loomis? - robgood@bestweb.net, 8/15/05
- Though Loomis did get an 1872 patent, in those days a description alone was sufficient—no working model was needed. Loomis claimed his wireless telegraph used atmospheric electricity, not radio. There was never any evidence that Loomis, a dentist, ever built a working system in 20 years of promoting it. See this link re: Fakes in early radio history. (He also claimed his system would provide unlimited free electricity, eliminate tornadoes, and cure malaria.) --Blainster 09:03, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Discrepancy about First broadcasts
There appears to be a bit of a discrepancy between the "Audio Broadcasting" and "Radio Broadcasting Beginnings" sections of this article regarding the "firsts." The most notable one is how the first regular entertainment broadcasts are currently credited to a station operating in the UK in 1922; however Conrad had a regular schedule to broadcast music on his station as early as 1916. (If that doesn't count, KDKA had "regular" entertainment broadcasts before 1922 as well.) I believe the article should make a mention of the fact that the radio firsts are all murky at best regarding legitimacy, as there currently isn't one. Andromeda321 20:11, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Not only about US and UK
The August 27 of 1920 Radio Argentina begins regularly scheduled transmissions from the Teatro Coliseo in Buenos Aires. This is the first regularly scheduled transmission. The first radio show ;)
- I am here trying to confirm Lenin in Bolshevik Russia really broadcast to
the masses in 1919. If he did, who could hear him ? On what ? see: Vladimir Lenin In a radio speech in 1919, Lenin stated: - - "The Tsarist police, in alliance with the landowners and the capitalists, organized pogroms against the Jews. .... Thanks.. Hrothgar 01:44, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Radio detection tubes
I removed this sentence from the beginning of the section on Audio broadcasting: "The invention of the vacuum tube detector, invented by a team of Westinghouse engineers. " Grammatically it has no predicate (verb), and according to the article Vacuum tube the diode detector was invented by John Ambrose Fleming, not a team of Wesinghouse engineeers. --Blainster 23:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
- I would imagine that it is a more modern form ... the "fleming valve" was very primative ... I'll look around ... J. D. Redding 00:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC) (PS., the vacuum tube oscillators amplifiers didn't become widespread till c. 1915 [after Armstrong patented the way to use it]; also, Forest's valve was better than Fleming's, etc ....)
- Came across the fact that Westinghouse bought up DeForest's and Armstrong's patents ... c.1921 ... when radio really took off ... 1920s was the 1st moder decade ... J. D. Redding
- Gonna put in a modified sentence ... "The 1920s saw the development of a more modern vacuum tube, constructed by Westinghouse engineers (after Westinghouse bought DeForest's and Armstrong's patent.)." J. D. Redding 00:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
As long as you understand that Fleming's tube was a diode, a two-element device that rectifies (or detects) a signal, but it cannot amplify. DeForest's tube is a three-element triode that can amplify the signal appearing at the grid in the larger plate current. The diode is required or you cannot build a receiver. The triode is nice to make a louder sound, but it is not required. So Fleming's invention was the crucial one. DeForest's was a good advance but it wasn't the key to making radio work. --Blainster 04:39, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Regenerative vs. heterodyne circuits
An editor seem to be confusing regenerative with heterodyne circuits in his edits regarding Reginald Fessenden. These two types of circuit have a different design, with regens based on high positive feedback, and heterodynes based on IF generation using a separate oscillator. They are not the same, and not used together in the same receiver. --Blainster 18:04, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Reginald Fessenden used (his own) heterodyne principles and Tesla's (regenerative) principles ... Reginald Fessenden - The Radio Broadcasts of Canadian Reginald ... Reginald Fessenden started his own company where he invented the modulation of radio waves, the "heterodyne principle" ... regeneration is done as in Tesla's disruptive discharge coils and the operations of his alternators ... also ... they can be together in the same system (Regenerative and Reflex Receivers explains this ...), if not the same circuit ... J. D. Redding 03:47, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Merge "Invention of radio"
The article Invention of radio was started in January, 2006. It contains information that may be useful in this article, but covers the same topic, so should be merged here. --Blainster 17:43, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
- Invention of radio seems now to be specifically about the disputes about who invented radio. Anthony Appleyard 09:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Photo:An early radio on display in the National Museum of Australia
This image appears to be a localizing speaker as part of a display and not an early radio.
- Hmm, this is possible but as far as I remember, I took the photo coz the caption said it was an early radio. I could be wrong tho. Maybe someone who lives in Canberra could double check? --Fir0002 www 08:05, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] West Sayville and radio history
Going through the Telefunken reference to the West Sayville entry, I found a rather poorly-written section on the radio station, which includes a link to what seems to be an excellent web-page, on the history of the site and the technology used. http://www.sayville.com/wireless.html Could somebody more familiar with what sort of info should go where have a look; I reckon that page is worth a mention here, but it may be better referenced elsewhere. Zhochaka 10:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Cleanup
- Differences
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_radio&diff=61282925&oldid=60336489
- pre-bullet style
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_radio&oldid=60336489
This article needs to get out of the bullet style. 134.193.168.244 23:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
- I have put it back to timeline format: by new editing, not by reverting. Essay style and "varying the expression" is confusing to read through when searching for specific pieces of information, regardless of what schoolteachers drum into their pupils. As it was put back into essay style, the text was chopped regardless into even-sized paragraphs with information about different men and different items of technology mixed together. Anthony Appleyard 08:56, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- The bullet style is not encyclopedia style and expansion of the topic in paragraph form is easy to read through when searching. The text was divided as to time period with information about different men and different items of technology mixed together, as they occred at the same date. 134.193.26.35
- I have seen plenty of list-style timeline descriptions in Wikipedia and in encyclopedias printed on paper. Anthony Appleyard 14:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Removed
The following is not relevant, death of people should goto their bio. On the first day of 1894, Heinrich Rudolf Hertz died. 134.193.26.35
[edit] image is not a radio
that photo isn't a radio....
It' a speaker. http://www.interface.com/cone_of_silence
[edit] History of radio, Invention of radio
- History of radio and Invention of radio largely covered the same field, so I merged them. I put the 4 longest of the resulting sections (Marconi, Tesla, Jagdish Chandra Bose, Heinrich Hertz) in History of radio (more information) with summaries and pointers to them in History of radio. Invention of radio now is a redirect to History of radio. Anthony Appleyard 09:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
- See Talk:Marconi's_role_in_the_history_of_radio for discussion on my reversions.
[edit] Another version of this page and its dependent pages
I tried to revise History of radio and Invention of radio, and it caused controversy (see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Invention of radio and some pages that it links to). My versions are in my namespace. Anthony Appleyard 17:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Enough of This
Pick a place: Here, your talk page, Invention Of Radio, wherever. Pick one spot, we can discuss it. Sparkhead 19:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Popov
Why is Alexander Popov mentioned after Oliver Lodge and Jagdish Chandra Bose? The public demonstration of his invention came before theirs... --Illythr 14:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
