Talk:Thomas Edison/archive

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Light Bulb credit is misplaced?

I have read that, similarly, the credit traditionally given to Thomas Edison for the invention of the Light Bulb is misplaced. I am not competent to assess this claim.

He did invent the filament for the light bulb...I know that.

No he didn't. He came up with one that extended the lifespan of the bulbs from 150 hours to 1200. Joseph Swan patented the carbon filament lightbulb a year before Edison. Wikipedia needs to get this right, and not rely on me either. --Belltower

Well read the change I have just made and you will see that even Swann wasn't first. I think it is OK to say that he is widely recognised as the inventor of the light bulb (which is true) but wikipedia should show the prior art as well.

As soon as the voltaic pile or battrey was invented, experimenters saw that a wire could be made to glow, in the early years of the 19th century. Swann's and others efforts were inferior to Edison's because for one, they did not have a high enough vacuum, so the filament burned out quickly, and more importantly, they did not consider the larger question of limiting the amount of current required by the bulb . Edison's filament had high resistance, making it practical to run conductors from a central generating plant for many blocks, without the high cost of copper for the larger currents of earlier bulbs. Edison developed a complete system, with his own generators, switches, fuses, fixtures, etc and was the first to develop a useful bulb which could be used to replace gas lights economically. Leading scientists such as Tyndall wrote that he was sure to fail in his effort to "subdivide the electric light." This goes agaiunst the claim that others had invented it previously.Edison 17:46, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

invention complexity

Many inventions are so complex that no one person can be named the inventor. Many people contribute pieces to the whole, and by a creative process that is worth studying in itself, the pieces are brought together. Probably this is more common today then it was in the past, because technologies are more complex today, but it is true even of many older technologies: steam engine, radio, automobile, television. It would not be surprising if many of Edison's inventions turned out to be contributions of this sort, but I do not think this should detract from his reputation. - TimShell

By and large this isn't what happened, though. What Edison did was pioneer the concept of a research lab: he got a bunch of bright people together, so they could work together, and made sure their ideas were not (as oft happens) simply dropped. So he doesn't deserve credit for most of the ideas, but he does deserve credit for anyone using them. This shouldn't detract from his reputation, but it should make it different. -- Josh Grosse

Joshua, that's an interesting perspective! I had not thought of this before, but to me it actually enhances Edison's reputation. Because surely the pioneering of a research process is an invention of sorts, far surpassing the importance

first inventors to apply the principles of mass production?

He is one of the first inventors to apply the principles of mass production to the process of invention

Is this strictly true? He had a workshop of inventors. He mass produced the products of invention, but mass production to the process of invention seems somewhat contradictory. Mintguy

I agree with your objection here. Suggested rewordings? -- Infrogmation 01:37 Jan 25, 2003 (UTC)
It seems an unneccesary recent addition.
Could change it to "...one of the first inventors to mass produce the products of invention", but i'm not sure if he was truly one of the first. Mintguy
No, that is actually right. He applied the principles of mass production to invention. For instance, he had a lab, in which several hundred people tried different filament materials until one was found that worked well. He used assembly line techniques in the research itself, not just in producing the product. --ssd 23:59, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Re: Light bulb

Re: Light bulb. It just isn't an Edison invention. He holds no valid patents on it, only the ones he bought from Swan. Mintguy

Something like: Edison did not invent the electric lightbulb, but it was Edison's relentless attention to detail that made the lightbulb a practical, commercial proposition. That sticks closely to the facts, and avoids all the tedious minor detals that get in the way of the flow of narrative. If desired, mention can be made of the actual inventors in a place where this will not distract, and will not make Wikipedia look like a place where partisans argue until the resulting text is so full of qualifications and carefully negotiated balancing opposites that the bones of the disagreement show through more clearly than the flesh of the entry. Tannin 01:45 Jan 25, 2003 (UTC)

I'd go along with that. Mintguy
Yes good; I put that in. -- Infrogmation 02:27 Jan 25, 2003 (UTC)

Pretty sharp.-Stevert

I'm trying to highlight the fact that when you ask most people in the US who invented the light bulb they will say Edison, which is actually far from the truth. Hence "Edison is often incorrectly named as the inventor of the light bulb" Mintguy

I'd say most people all around the world, Mintguy. Well, actually most people would say "who cares?" or "beats me", but you know what I mean. The question then, becomes how should we deal with this? Essentially, there are three approaches:
  • Say "Most people believe X but they are wrong." The trouble with this approach is (a) that it's very difficult to do in such a way as not to imply that there are grounds for controversy (which, in this case, there are not), and (b) that by providing the reader with semi-conflicting information about two quite different questions at the same time, it is confusing. Come back and ask that same reader what he learned a little later (i.e., seek to discover what things have made it past his short-term and into his long-term memory) and chances are you'll be told: Edison? Something to do with lightbulbs wasn't it? Didn't he invent them or something?
  • Simply ignore the misconception and get on with laying out the facts. This approach risks some clueless fool marching in a little later and adding the myth in big bold letters as an obvious improvememt, can't understand why you guys didn't know that!
  • Try to provide the facts so simply and clearly that the reader can see for himself what the real triumph was, and is then in a position to (a) understand the facts of history, and (b) understand the reason for the myth, and thus be in a position to immediately refute it if he meets it elsewhere. One fact, two understandings is always better than two facts, misunderstanding.
No prizes for guessing that I am in favour of the third approach. Partly, this is a matter of taste. Mostly though, it is a matter of effective communication. Tannin 03:24 Jan 25, 2003 (UTC)


Tannin's version looks fine to me. I think some of the confusion may have been whether or not to note that a significantly improved version of something pre-existing can also be called an invention. -- Infrogmation 02:46 Jan 25, 2003 (UTC)

If anything then, the prize should go to William Coolidge who invented the tungston filament. Mintguy
Just so, Infrogmation, When is an invention an invention? Tannin

I query the statement that: "On January 19, 1883 the first electric lighting system employing overhead wires began service in Roselle, New Jersey."

Charles F Brush's station was supplying power to street lights on Broadway in 1880. The April 1881 issue of Scientific American featured a cover story on the Brush system in New York. Tiles 00:09, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

The paragraph on the lightbulb seems to have become all balls'd up! There was no James Woodward and Matthew Evans. Ther was a Henry Woodward and Mathew Evans who are mentioned later in the text and I'm not convicned about this Heinrich Goebel bloke. Mintguy 18:13, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

contradiction

This is a contradiction:

"Though Edison did advocate executions via AC electrocution..."

"Ironically, Edison was against capital punishment, but..."

Which is correct? Anyone have any quotations to back it up? -- Omegatron 15:27, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I'm not sure about this, but that does sound fishy. He did advocate executions via AC? is this a joke? I know that Edison's lightbulbs only used direct current, so why would he want to execute people with ac? Greenmountainboy 16:26, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Apparently it's true, and there's even a whole book on the subject; Googling shows this at Amazon for instance. Stan 16:58, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)
If it's a joke, it's Edison's joke. IIRC, he hated AC, as it competed with his DC. He did hate the death penalty, and was hoping bad publicity around it would give AC a bad name -- the electricity that kills or something. Didn't seem to work. -- ssd 00:03, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Rudolph Hunter

I was wondering if any of you had ever heard that a man named Rudolph Hunter at least had a hand in the invention of the light bulb. Kind of a blind search I know, but I would love to know if anyone has anymore information.

Reverted to last edit by Reddi

Reverted to last edit by Reddi to remove extreme POV edits Tiles 07:50, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Infobox on main article (please comment)

I'd like to get ideas about the infobox on the main page. It's concept is under discussion, so your input as biography editors is invaluable. Thanks! -- Netoholic @ 04:57, 2004 Sep 13 (UTC)

Does the inclusion of a single quote line (not the quote itself) conflict with the Neutral point of view policy such that it should be removed? Please comment, one per line.

vandalism

On 26 Oct a vandal removed large chunks of the article with this edit. Unusually, that was not caught right away, and further good edits were made since. I reverted to the pre-vandalism version just now; I'll next look to see what significant was lost of more recent improvements. -- Infrogmation 14:46, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I only spotted one small link, and reinstated it. Double checking welcome. -- Infrogmation 15:07, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Goebel

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Thomas_Edison&diff=0&oldid=8276718

Changed "Although a less successful light bulb was pioneered by Heinrich Goebel (who does not even appear on Time's list), it was Edison who made the modern era possible by "

into "Although a less successful light bulb may have been pioneered by Heinrich Goebel, it was Edison who made the modern era possible by "

What does Goebel's inclusion in Time have to do with Edison? Readers can look up Goebel if they want.


Lewis Latimer

I deleted the Lewis Latimer info, which was wholly inaccurate. For instance, the following :

Latimer invented the filament for the light bulb after Edison failed to come up with anything practical. He made his filament out of carbon, which lasted much longer than Edison's filament (which was made of bamboo).

Two things wrong with that. First, Latimer did not get into the lighting business until February 1880, by which time Edison had already patented his famous "filament of carbon of high resistance." Second, Edison's bamboo filament was indeed a carbon filament; i.e., the bamboo fibers were carbonized by heating them to a very high temperature.[1]

Dr. Rayvon Fouché in his book Black Inventors in the Age of Segregation tells that Latimer was hired by Edison's company as a draftsman and expert witness for patent litigations, but did not work on improving the light bulb while in Edison's employ. Latimer actually did his filament work at a previous job with one of Edison's competitors, United States Electric Lighting Co (USEL). While there, Latimer obtained one patent for reducing filament breakage during manufacture, and another for a method of attaching the filament to the wire connections. Both innovations were incorporated by USEL in the manufacture of at least some of their lamps. It is important to note that these were manufacturing and assembly improvements; there is no evidence that the performance of the filament was improved. There's also no reason to assume that these innovations were adopted outside USEL. I confirmed this by emailing Dr. Bayla Singer, co-author of the Latimer biography Blueprint for Change, who replied:

I didn't find any evidence that Latimer's electric light patents were adopted anywhere outside of US Electric - but lack of evidence is not evidence of lack :) Nor did I find evidence that Latimer's inventions extended the life of the carbon filament; the patents are for improved manufacturing and assembly processes, which improved productivity by decreasing breakage.


The Edison wiki article also included the following overstatement:

Much of the work leading to the improvement of the light bulb was done by one of Edison's assistants, Lewis Latimer, an African American.

I deleted that part too, because Latimer's innovations are not widely regarded as significant, certainly not to the extent that he can be credited with "much of the work leading to the improvement of the light bulb." It is worth noting that Latimer is not credited with significantly improving the light bulb in any Edison biography or in any recognized and respected publication on the history of electric lighting. Even Fouché concluded that Latimer's inventions did not have lasting importance:

This study of Granville Woods, Lewis Latimer, and Shelby Davidson certainly calls the myth [of their having fundamentally contributed to American society] into question and illustrates that black inventors were not what we would like to think they were. As for being financially successful, none became wealthy from their inventive work. Woods passed away poor and anonymous. Davidson and Latimer were solidly middle class but not because of the successes of their inventions. Furthermore, none of their inventions can be considered a technological triumph. Both Davidson and Latimer received patents for devices that were obsolete fairly soon after the United States Patent Office granted them their legal monopolies. Woods received several patents, but their use and his financial compensation were minimal.

West Orange Research

Shouldn't this article contain some reference/information to the larger research facility that Edison established in West Orange (1887 I think)?