Talk:Thomas Edison/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

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)?

Missing information for first record

Perhaps something interresting : http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7318180.stm You might want to see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89douard-L%C3%A9on_Scott_de_Martinville wich is in some language but not in english...

It seems that Edison "stole" an other invention —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.252.16.155 (talk) 11:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Error In Article

Should be "off the train" not "of the train". he's right

ME —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.137.191.236 (talk) 11:48, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Tomas Edison by Kate

I think he was great because he invented the light bulb and loads of other things.

This massive article says NOTHING about his later years and death. That needs to be changed. Weatherman90 01:52, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Any truth to the idea that Edison was very anti semetic? Wasn't this a major factor in why he refused to sell patents to the future movers and shakers in Hollywood (and forced them to go to Hollywood as well?) Flyerhell 22:20, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

• • I also heard that he was very racist. Would that be something to apply to the article? Link9er 13:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I thought it was Henry Ford who was widely rumored as having been Anti-Semitic, not Edison. Perhaps both of them have been accused of it, however... DarthCat 02:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I have read a remark made by Paul Auster in his novel "The Invention of Solitude," that would make you think so. It says that the narrator´s father was hired "for a brief moment" as an assistant in Edison's library "only to have the job taken away from him the next day because Edison learned he was a Jew." (By the way, the novel is, at least, partially autobiographical, so I don´t know if Paul Auster´s father was really thrown away by Edison)4 February 2006

He was a creature of his times and his background, so he likely shared widespread prejudices. I have seen phonograph records which today only the KuKluxKlan would like: there were "humor" records in which white comedians would make jokes in dialect, with stereotypical imagined actions and words of minorities. I can think of whole series of such records reinforcing the attitudes of whites in the US and elsewhere towards Blacks and Jews. He certainly was not outside the 19th and early 20th century mainstream in maintaining such stereotypes, as they were common in newspapers, novels, and plays. Edison 18:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Military Work

Knowing Thomas Edison as he is there should be a section on his (largely unsuccessful) work on military technology for WWI. It was sort of an early transitional step into the era of Big Science, as collaborative, scientifically-based labs were more successful in creating useful military inventions than Edison and his helprs with his tinkering approach of many independent minds. --ragesoss 08:29, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

It was called the Naval Consulting Board. --RedJ 17 13:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Error in the Introduction

I don't know if it is a typo or vandalism. In the introductory section it states "In 1995, three generations of Edisons took up farming ..." I'm assuming it should be 1795? I've changed it, if not, change it back. --Davril2020 00:21, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Likewise for the statement "Thomas had a Grandma that is still alive! She was born in 7009. She is not 1 years old yet! Her name is Lookie Edison... i think!" in "Family background".

If Samuel Ogden Edison Jr. was born i 1804, how could he be one of the three generations who took up farming near Vienna, Ontario in 1795? Theo06 08:38, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Most patents ever issued to one individual

I think that it is really a shame that, on the third topmost line of a supposedly "good article", lies a baffling factual error: Nevertheless, Edison is considered one of the most prolific (in terms of patents) inventors in history, holding 1,093 U.S. patents in his name (the most ever issued to one individual),[...]. You may want to check more thoroughly into this problem [2]. Wikipedia isn't the place for legends, and especially not the heading lines of such an important article. Just to remind you, Wikipedia:Good_articles reads be factually accurate and be referenced. False assertions of this kind inevitably will happen, and that's fine, but it is the raison d'être of good articles to avoid them.

I just noticed that too and I remembered reading the Slashdot article[3]. But that's the great thing about Wikipedia, if you see something that is blatantly wrong, you can easily correct it.Shadow demon 06:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Where is the error? Edison was issued 1,093 patents, and you can see every one of them at the Patent Office site. -dennyK

The error is that he doesn't hold the most patents anymore. Clarityfiend 09:47, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

The number of patents held by Edison is clearly exceptional for one person. Whether or not someone else now holds more is of somewhat marginal significance. Edison was dubbed "The Wizard of Menlo Park" by the New York Daily Graphic in April 1878 when he held only 131 patents so his folk hero status rests on far more than merely the number of patents he held or whether or not he had more than anyone else. I would be interested, in the interests of accuracy, in knowing the individual (not corporation) who exceeded Edison's tally and when. The information could be used to amend the article.IanWills 22:48, 16 March 2006 (UTC)IanWills

I had previously had no success with the U.S. patent office but a bit more research has yielded the name of Dr Yoshiro NakaMats who is claimed to have been awarded 3,200 patents (the number is not verified). I now see how the confusion has arisen concerning Edison since the statement quoted above can be interpreted as meaning "Edison held the most patents issued to an individual" (apparently incorrect in the light of Dr NakaMats). However, when literally interpreted it is equivalent to "Edison held the most U.S. patents issued to an individual", which is apparently true. A less contentious sentence would read: "Edison is considered one of the most prolific (in terms of patents) inventors in history, holding the most U.S patents issued to an individual (1,093)." Am I correct in this or does someone else hold more than 1,093 U.S. patents? IanWills 11:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)IanWills

According to USA Today (12/6/05), Donald Weder is apparently the current US recordholder, with 1321, though they are not terribly important. He's a florist and his patents have to do with things like covering a flowerpot, or a sleeve for holding flowers. Clarityfiend 00:36, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

--There is a problem with the statement "All of Edison's patents were utility patents, which were protected for a 17 year period and included inventions or processes that are electrical, mechanical, or chemical in nature. About a dozen were design patents, which protect an ornamental design for up to a 14 year period." My understanding is that currently a patent can either be for utility (what it does) or for design (how it looks). A single patent can not currently cover both design AND utility. Could a patent expert clear this up, please. Could a patent at that time cover design & utility or does the language need some cleaning up to say perhaps, "Most of Edison's patents were utility...., but about a dozen were design patents..." MountainLogic —Preceding comment was added at 15:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Duplicate Paragraphs Deleted

I was reading this for the first time tonight. I found that ALL the discriptive headers staring with "Inventor" and going through "Media Inventions" repeated, right up to the header "Homes." I deleted all the dupes. I did NOT mark this as a minor edit, but I did leave a marker with text at the point of deletion. Is it more correct to simply delete the duplicates and post HERE, or leave a mark as I did, for large text deletions? Cpswarrior 07:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)cpswarrior

Marriages and later life

Somebody did a poor job of repairing the vandalism of 3/1/06. I have pasted the overwritten text back (the sections Inventor and Menlo Park). Clarityfiend 09:51, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Movie Pirate

I think it should be noted (maybe in the Trivia section) that Edison was one of the first movie pirates, making copies and profiting from "From the Earth to the Moon". 69.161.146.61 05:17, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

This assertion was made in a TV movie about the creator of "From the Earth to the Moon", but some verifiable source is needed before it is put in the article.Edison 23:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Edison bootlegged John Philip Sousa’s band in 1902 on a wax cylinder. http://www.medialoper.com/columns/thats-what-i-like/thats-what-i-like-bootlegs/ and IMDB lists Edison's piracy for the film here: http://imdb.com/title/tt0000417/trivia Jared (talk) 12:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Sleep Myth + minor quibble

I remember reading somewhere that it was a myth that Edison only needed a few hours sleep. Apparently he took frequent naps during the day. Can anybody confirm this and add it to the article if true?

I'm removing the qualifier "(in terms of patents)". He was one the most prolific, period. Clarityfiend 02:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Books say he and his crew would work around the clock on an invention, maybe 48 hours, then sleep in when the thing was finally made to work. Edison had a niche under the stair in the lab where he could catnap. Edison 05:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Tesla

The bit about Tesla under Improvements should either be deleted or rewritten, as it implies that Tesla did his work in alternating current when working for Edison, when it had been done years earlier. He worked for him briefly, and little contact with him after that, so it's inaccurate to say "it was related as were the two men."

• Tesla's most important AC work, such as the brushless induction motor and the polyphase AC transmission system was actually done after his time working for Edison, not before.The Tesla article says he worked for Edison for a year, so it was not all that brief.Edison 20:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• please note that Edison was completely anti-AC and there was no way he would have encouraged Tesla or supported his work in this area except to prove it unsuitable for anything but killing people

thomas edison" invents

thomas edison"s inventions

War of currents

Deleted the word "inexpensive" before "transformers." Transformers were and are a major expense item for utilities. The step up and step down transformers at generating stations and substations may cost several million dollars each, and the distribution transformers on the poles in residential neighborhoods may cost thousands of dollars. So what are they "inexpensive" in comparison with? Edison 17:36, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Noted inclusion of "Topsy the Elephant" execution as part of the "war of currents" section. Since Westinghouse (et. al) had "harnessed Niagara" and the World's Columbian Exposition were both over before the turn of the twentieth century, wasn't this elephant killed after the "war" was over (1903)?

BFDhD 21:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Your observation is a good one: when General Electric was formed in the eatly 1890's Thomas Edison dropped out of the electricity business and moved on to other areas such as motion pictires, the phonograph,the iron ore separator, and concrete. He had little or no inolvement in electrical research or promotion of direct current by 1903. The elephant electrocution was just a weak echo of the "war of the currents." Edison

Iron ore separator

Yes, yes, sofixit (and I will, eventually), but this article is currently quite deficient in failing to discuss his experiments in magnetic ore beneficiation. He invested a great deal of his personal fortune in the process, only to be wiped out by the availability of cheap, rich Mesabi Range ores by the time he had sufficiently perfected it. Choess 04:52, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Media Inventions

There is an entry for two way telegraph in 1892. I do not see why this is worthy of listing, and if there is no comment in support, will modify it. This refers to a patent 480,567 for a duplex telegraph, which actually allowed 2 messages to be sent in the same direction at the same time. The original Morse telegraph in the 1840's was of course a two way instrument in that messages could be sent in eithr direction, although one at a time (simplex). Inventors wished to make better use of the expensive telegraph wires by using polarity or frequency division to send multiplt messages at the same time, and this work led to the development of the telephone. But Edison patented 10 Duplex telegraphs in the 1870's, and had patented a "sextuple" telegraph before the one cited in the article. Did the 1892 patent have a big effect on the industry somehow? I propose to change the listing to "Duplex Telegraph, 1874." This would refer to patent 147917, which was his first such patent.Edison 14:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Would you explain this please a bit more. Patent 480,567 may have been granted on August 9 1892 but the application was dated September 1 1874, pretty much at the peak of Edison's telegraph patent output. Is the problem that it is less significant than the quadruplex telgraph or perhaps that it is not related to media?IanWills 12:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)IanWills

I will have to research how important his various multiplex telegraph patents were, but by 1892 he and the industry had moved way beyond duplex, so the listing seems like an anachronism, unless it led to something big. I don't see why it belongs in the same selective listing as sound recording and motion pictures. It is a good catch that he applied for the 1892 patent back in 1874. As for media inventions, the article has noted his development of sound recording, and motion picture photography and projection. He also exhibited films with accompanying voice recordings. Kinetophone cylinders still exist, but it was crude and not a commercial success. I plan to research the details and add a note. Also there should be a note on his invention of the carbon microphone, used in early broadcasting and in telephones until the present. Edison 21:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)pop. I have looked further into this and the delay in awarding the patent seems to have been due to a dispute with Harold C. Nicholson, who had got Edison's 1865 sketches of the duplex from Ezra Gilliland. There may also have been litigation over the use of the duplex since some company's (including Western Union I think) were using it without paying Edison fees. Edison had developed dozens of duplex designs in the 1860s and 70s. I agree that by the 1890s the duplex was old technology. On this basis the 1892 patent is an anachronism as you note.

The carbon microphone is worth adding in. Edison worked on a wide range of microphone designs, mostly resistance based but in February 1877 built one that used capacitance. He never patented it. IanWills 01:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)IanWills

In researching this I ran across a funny newspaper article from 1875, when Edison had announced his discovery of what was later called Hertzian Waves, but which he called "Etheric Force." An expensive telegraph line which could carry 4 messages at the same time as it ordinarily carried 1 was 4 times as valuable. The reporter said "Edison is not only duplicitous; he is quadriplicitous." Edison 03:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)