Talk:Radio communication system

{{db-nonsense}}

Why is this "nonsense"? J. D. Redding 15:32, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Because of the premise in the lead sentence, as discussed at Talk:Invention_of_radio#A_radio_communication_system_requires_two_tuned_circuits_each_at_the_transmitter_and_receiver.2C_all_four_tuned_to_the_same_frequency. It would be easily recognized as nonsense by anyone who has ever built a simple radio receiver with a single tuned circuit (or none, for that matter). It's not supported by the source. And it's really just spillover from an edit dispute. There are plenty of other articles on radio communications, are there not? If not, create an article based on a sensible premise, not on an error that's being rejected elsewhere. Dicklyon (talk) 15:39, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

There are sources ... and I will improve it ... There are not plenty of other articles on radio communication systems. Show me if there is ... there is not look around. J. D. Redding 15:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

There is not an article with exactly this scope, but since you started it with just content that had been firmly rejected from another radio article, it's immediate suspect as just Wikipedia:Content forking. You keep putting back the nonsense, instead of engaging in the discussion about it, where the meaning of the source has been pointed out. Your idiosyncratic interpretations are not going to yield net progress. Dicklyon (talk) 21:00, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Patent refs

There are plenty of good accessible book sources that could be used to write an intelligible article, instead of relying on old patents for obsolete and stilted terminology that makes the article unintepretable. I removed Hays already, as the statement attributed to his patent was so ambiguous as to be meaningless. Now we've got a pile of John Stone Stone sources for stuff that shouldn't be there. Reddi, if you want to write an article that respects the historical development, the way to do that is to cite good historical sources, not to dig up obscure stuff out of patents. Dicklyon (talk) 20:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Speedy merge

Perhaps this should be speedy merged into the appropriate radio article? It's certainly misnamed, but if it's a redirect, that wouldn't be so bad. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

A section in radio would make sense. How do you speed a merge? Dicklyon (talk) 04:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Merge, by all means. Why is this even here? --Wtshymanski (talk) 00:16, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Why? Same reason that User:Reddi re-wrote Radio transmitter design: so he could include an assertion that was rejected from the invention of radio article. Dicklyon (talk) 04:14, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Suggested sources

I moved this list of uncited general info to here instead of leaving the impression that they were used in writing the articles. Any that have actually been used should be actually cited instead:

General Information

• "Wireless telegraphy", The Encyclopaedia Britannica. (1922). London: Encyclopaedia Britannica.
• Mazzotto, D., & Bottone, S. R. (1906). Wireless telegraphy and telephony. London: Whittaker & Co.
• Fleming, J. A. (1908). The principles of electric wave telegraphy. London: New York and Co.
• Murray, J. E. (1907). A handbook of wireless telegraphy. New York: D. Van Nostrand Co.; [etc.].
• Twining, H. L. V., & Dubilier, W. (1909). Wireless telegraphy and high frequency electricity; a manual containing detailed information for the construction of transformers, wireless telegraph and high frequency apparatus, with chapters on their theory and operation. Los Angeles, Cal: The author.
• Massie, W. W., & Underhill, C. R. (1911). Wireless telegraphy and telephony popularly explained. New York: D. Van Nostrand.
• Sewall, C. H. (1904). Wireless telegraphy: its origins, development, inventions, and apparatus. New York: D. Van Nostrand.
• Collins, A. F. (1905). Wireless telegraphy; its history, theory and practice. New York: McGraw Pub.
• Fahie, J. J. (1900). A history of wireless telegraphy, 1838-1899: including some bare-wire proposals for subaqueous telegraphs. Edinburgh: W. Blackwood and Sons.
• Colby, F. M., Williams, T., & Wade, H. T. (1930). "Wireless Telegraphy", The New international encyclopaedia. New York: Dodd, Mead and Co.
• Trevert, E. (1904). The A.B.C. of wireless telegraphy; a plain treatise on Hertzian wave signaling; embracing theory, methods of operation, and how to build various pieces of the apparatus employed. Lynn, Mass: Bubier Pub.
• Stanley, R. (1919). Text-book on wireless telegraphy. London: Longmans, Green.
• Thompson, S. P. (1915). Elementary lessons in electricity and magnetism. New York: Macmillan
• Telegraphing across space, Electric wave method. The Electrical engineer. (1884). London: Biggs & Co.
• Simmons, H. H. (1908). "Wireless telegraphy", Outlines of electrical engineering. London: Cassell and Co.
• Bottone, S. R. (1910). Wireless telegraphy and Hertzian waves. London: Whittaker & Co.
• Erskine-Murray, J. (1909). A handbook of wireless telegraphy: its theory and practice, for the use of electrical engineers, students, and operators. New York: Van Nostrand.
• American Institute of Electrical Engineers. (1884). "Wireless Telephony — By R. A. Fessenden (Illustrated.)", Transactions of the American Institute of Electrical Engineers. New York: American Institute of Electrical Engineers.
• The New Physics and Its Evolution. Chapter VII : A Chapter in the History of Science: Wireless telegraphy by Lucien Poincare, eBook #15207, released February 28, 2005.
• Comparative Study of the Hertz, Marconi and Tesla Low-Frequency Wireless Systems
• Hansell, Clarence W., U.S. patent 2,389,432, "Communication system by pulses through the Earth".
• Reginald Fessenden, U.S. patent 706,738
• Louis Alan Hazeltine, U.S. patent 1,697,650
• John Hays Hammond, Jr., U.S. patent 1,816,579
• Frank Conrad, U.S. patent 2,057,640

---

These should be put back in .. will have to work them in individually apparently ... J. D. Redding 22:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Time to go

This article was created by one user to express his personal opinion. I suggest that it is deleted. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:45, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Reidrected and merged. We'll see how long it stays that way. --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:46, 11 January 2012 (UTC)