Trials & Errors #69: The Man Behind AM Radio

That's quite an aspiration.

 

Much like Edison. I get the impression from reading that he came up with the "idea" then asked his minions to make it so.

 

That was sure the way that Edison worked. Not sure if Fessenden had a lot of minions, though. Edison launched other inventors' careers though, didn't he! Fessenden being one of them. Dave W7DGJ

 

Thread has been edited. There was a circular argument taking place here, as much my fault as the other poster's, and I have just deleted almost all of that back-and-forth. Just an FYI, Dave W7DGJ

 

Interested readers may find useful understanding of when 'ideas' take the path to 'invention' through 'enablement'. And why they are not the same.

Comments on this can be found at some of the following:

PATENT IT YOURSELF by David Pressman
ONE SIMPLE IDEA by Gene Key
INVENTOR'S GUIDE TO PATENTS by Steve Quinn

 

Really? Last time I read any of these, then.

"Just an FYI."

 

Hi David, that's fine. A friend told me no one understood what was going on, and in re-reading I agreed. Took my complaints down, all of them. Left up the post that pissed me off in the first place. Sounds fair to me! I'll make them visible to you in a WORD file if it's that big of a concern. Let me know by QRZ email address, Dave W7DGJ

 

Here is Fessenden's 'heterodyning' patent . He does not claim invention of heterodyning nor its ideation. He does claim (in 9 claims) the implementation (enablement) of heterodyning through electromagnetic 'signalling apparatus'.

Fessenden makes it very clear that he is not inventing 'heterodyning'. Indeed, from the patent he acknowledges:

" Broadly my invention consists in the production of electrical beats analogous to sound-beats and their utilization in receiving-conductors tuned to the sending-conductors for wireless selective signaling."

US patent 706740a. 'Wireless Signalling". 1901.

Fessenden did indeed coin the term 'heterodyning' 7 years after this patent, presumably to clarify the use of beat frequencies as used in wireless (as opposed to audio sound).

This appears to be the origin of the confusion. He 'invented' the word. And of course, he applied the phenomenon into wireless. The 'idea' was well known for many, many years, perhaps centuries, before that as per sound 'beats'. Fessenden did not invent nor develop the idea of 'beats' (heterodyning).

Fessenden invented a method and apparatus ("production") that used beat frequencies in electromagnetic wireless signalling.

Today heterodyning is most commonly discussed in the context of PIM=> passive intermod.

Regards,
NC

 

As per "FYI"...

I request that you provide a copy to me and to K1VR if you wish to send private copies of my posts that you deleted, especially ones I did not approve for removal. That way there is less likelihood for their misrepresentation by third parties.

Cordially,
NC

 

Good point. I won't send them anywhere. Posts can be deleted when the thread steers off in a direction that becomes repetitive. There wasn't much said you didn't just repeat in your post above. The one you posted above is clear and well-written and states your concerns. Even though there was nothing anywhere in my article that said Fessenden "invented" the Heterodyne principal! I originally stated that he further developed the principal, but based on your strong objections to that, have changed the language just a bit to be more in line with what you've brought to the table . . . "He was also known for his use of the Heterodyne principal (long known) in the improvement of communications." Dave, W7DGJ

 

He first used the word 'heterodyne', which he coined, in a 1908 Smithsonian Report.

Interesting that he applied 'beats' in a 1901 invention but took a while to come up with his own way to describe it as per wireless.

 

I do not accept that assertion of repetitiveness nor other adjectives you used. Just leave your opinion off please as you've already killed those posts, so its been rendered barren; again, that removal was solely your doing.

You said this neutrally already; there was no reason to add anything else, as I quote above. Just stop there--" Thread has been edited. There was a circular argument taking place here, as much my fault as the other poster's, and I have just deleted almost all of that back-and-forth. Just an FYI, Dave W7DGJ"

Historians used to be the main ones who pursued original sources. AI is quite good at digging these out nowadays, but you have to check everything it says. Often, as in this case, worth the 10 minutes extra of the historian's time.

I do suggest going back to the source (in this case the patent(s) themselves) in your future inventor stories. So much gets watered down and inflated /conflated through (other) secondary write ups.

Tesla is absolutely the best example of this conflation, as his early patents did not disclose invention of 'wireless' as we know it. His system required a conductive ionosphere, technically 'without wires' but invoking a false mechanism. 'Wireless' is Hertzian waves (RF) not sky conduction. That important distinction was documented in 2016 in Proc of the Radio Club of America.

And yet people take Tesla as the inventor of radio. Even shows up in movies, like 'Bucket List'...

"FYI".

 

Chip, Sorry but my opinion remains unchanged . . . it was a back-and-forth exchange that no one but you and I cared about reading. It's gone now, although your original barb remains. I write a small column for a website, and do so purely because I love the subject of innovation and radio history, but when you talk about AI as if that's a source, you're stepping very close to real insult. Perhaps you don't realize that. My articles require me to work for quite a while on the research, and then quite a while to write. Please always feel free to point out something that might be in error, but don't make assumptions about the use of AI, as that is certainly not the case. While I'll always refer to Wikipedia or Brittanica etc, it's not for fact but to get to the list of resources they include at the bottom. Fessenden's, for example, had the book listed that his wife wrote, which is out of print. I managed to find a copy (linked here in the forum) and found it interesting, as were various notices from the press of the day. I don't think my use of the term "further developed" for his use of the Heterodyne principal was far-fetched or off base, but out of courtesy to you (and to end the back and forth) I changed the language to "used the Heterodyne principal" instead. I'm considering this matter closed and I hope you can see your way to doing the same. VY 73, Dave W7DGJ

 

I am only interested in the facts.

That should be your goal as well.

 

Agree with you on this, Chip. Dave, W7DGJ