Talk:Image dissector

message: he was born in utah. Arc88 19:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But he was a teenage farmboy from Idaho.  That is, Idaho is where he was a teenage farm boy.  Is there a better way to say it?  Putting his place of birth here is at least as misleading as the original. Dicklyon 19:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where Farnsworth was born 

message: One of the first all-electronic video camera tubes 
was invented in France by Edvard-Gustav Schoultz in 1921.
He filed the French patent FR-539-613 on August 23, 1921. 
The patent was accepted on April 5, 1922, and published 
on June 28, 1922. You can find a copy of the original 
document in the web page 
[] 
The Image Dissector was also invented in Germany by Max 
Diekmann and Rudolf Hell in 1925. They filed the German
patent DE-450-187 on April 5, 1925. The patent was accepted
on September 15, 1927, and published on October 3, 1927.
You can find a copy of the original document in the web page
[]
--134.153.204.160 (talk) 15:50, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: And nether bore more than a passing resemblance (if that) to Farnsworth's design, which actually produced an image. (Imagine that! A device that not only bore a patent, but did what it claimed to do.) Wasn't it Hell himself who said they couldn't get the thing to work because the didn't understand how to focus electron beams ("electron optics")? Cheers, Rico402 (talk) 06:57, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, there's a lot to be said for getting one's invention to work.  In wikipedia, it's a losing game to engage in invention priority disputes based on primary sources like patents.  I think we just shouldn't allow that.  It's OK to report the existence of these early patents, but statements about exactly what was invented, or who should get credit for what, definitely need to be backed up by secondary sources.  Even then, there will be disagreements, in which case we should simply report who takes what sides, and avoid taking sides ourselves.  Dicklyon (talk) 07:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: So would you support routine reverts (judiciously applied) when someone inserts a specious claim into an article based solely on a patent, without first doing a song and dance on the Talk page? (Cause I've been seeing, and doing, a lot of that. :) Cheers, Rico402 (talk) 07:35, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I'm big on the "R" step in WP:BRD; the "D" can follow if the reverted editor wants to make a case.  Especially on issues of priority and invention, we have no business making claims based on primary sources.  One can say "X filed a patent application on similar device in Y year", but not "X gets credit for inventing...".  But even there, if "similar device" is subject to dispute, and not verifiable in secondary sources, that should be taken out.  Dicklyon (talk) 16:36, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it should be noted, as well, that we at Wikipedia do not represent the sum total of all Wisdom.  We may be trying to pool all knowledge, but that is a different thing.  An example can be found in the Farnsworth debate.  During the heady days of invention, he grabbed as many headlines as his colleagues.  After the world settled into the drive to buy TV's, he was lost in the corporate siren of RCA's marketing dept.  It is only in the last 25 years that he has emerged from the shadows to be taken more seriously for the contributions he made.  A single thought, from a single individual, should never be the end-all of the debate.  That was what happened to Farnsworth.  Careful documentation, many verifiable sources, and what is the community at large--both inside and outside Wikipedia, inside and outside whatever discipline is being covered even--saying on the subject?  Playerpage (talk) 15:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: And you should rename this web page as: Farnsworth's work, the image dissector and other inventions that never worked. --189.216.74.201 (talk) 03:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two Historical Notes 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Image dissector. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110622033654/http://www.sfmuseum.org/hist10/philo.html to http://www.sfmuseum.org/hist10/philo.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080422211543/http://db3-sql.staff.library.utah.edu/lucene/Manuscripts/null/Ms0648.xml/complete to http://db3-sql.staff.library.utah.edu/lucene/Manuscripts/null/Ms0648.xml/complete
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:53, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: mapotu
Bem
Manwayela
41.121.102.165 (talk) 17:47, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nandoss 

message: This incomplete sentence should be edited for spelling and grammar.
Though RCA had paid royalties though in 1939, legal cost associated with RCA's patent disput, war time manufactuing pressure, Farnsworths patnet expiring just eight years later, and his understandable disilutionment his company would be dissolved shortly after world war two. Khoitsma (talk) 18:16, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  History