Talk:Nathan Stubblefield

message: Stubblefield is an exemplar of the solitary tinkerer who abandons everything: money, friends, and family, in tireless pursuit of an invention. Rarely, it works out, and the tinkerer achieves fame and fortune. Much more often, it turns out that the invention isn't practical, that the world isn't ready for it, or that by the time it is perfected, there are far better ways to achieve the same thing.  
Many websites attribute amazing feats to Stubblefield, in some cases the same feats as those attributed to Tesla, the ultimate aging mad scientist. I feel it is good to have an accurate Wikipedia article to both list what he did and did not invent. His accomplishments should be tied to documents like contemporary news reports, patents, photos, his own writings, and affidavits by witnesses, and not just wild assertions written many years after his death and referenced to nothing.
There are some very interesting photos of Stubblefield with his devices, which I would like to scan and include. Presumably after 104 years there is no copyright remaining on them?
Stubblefield could have built a very short range (a couple of feet) “wireless telephone” as soon as he possessed a Bell telephone earpiece and an Edison carbon granule mic, both very like what are in modern phone handsets,  along with a lot of wire to make the large circular coils for sending and receiving, and enough batteries to make the inductive link audible. But he acheived good reception at 1320 feet. Likewise, ground conduction could be achieved over very short range distances without much more than the same equipment. But speaking from experience, getting the range up to 1 1/2 miles in the 1902 Philadelphia demonstration is amazing, even discounting lack then of the 60 cycle hum we experience today from the power system. He may have tinkered with ways to get more current through the microphone without smoking it, and with better impedance matching between the transmitting coil and the microphone circuit. A replica of the original induction voice frequency wireless telephone was built and demonstrated by Bob Lochte and Larry Albert in recent years, so the technology still works even with the amount of 60 hz emf in the air.Edison 15:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Initial comments

message: A recent edit by 71.198.225.159 changed the biographical info for N.B. Stubblefield from the "third of four sons" which I quoted from Lochte's book to the 2nd of 7 sons. This may be true, but a source should be given, and the giving of the full names and birth dates of the siblings starts to make the article more genealogical than may be appropriate for Wikipedia, and also appear to constitute "original research" which Wiki discourages. By comparison, the article for Thomas Edison does not list the names of his siblings. On the other hand, the article for Henry Ford lists the first and last names of his sibs, with their years of birth and death, but without the dates. I request that 71.198.225.159 edit the article to give a source for the other 6 siblings of Nathan, and that they be listed  by first and last name only with only the year of birth and death (if known), and with a published source or other source.  There were several other Stubblefield families in Calloway County in the era of Nathan Stubblefield's birth (89 Stubblefield's are in the 1870 census for Calloway County, Kentucky, curiously none named Nathan, as searched on Ancestry.com). ETA: If Ada died in 1869, how did she have a son in 1871?Edison 17:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is interesting information, and should be included in a genealogy chart at sites such as Ancestry.com. But "family records, rootsweb.com and gravestones" are not reliable sources for Wikipedia purposes. Nathan's gravestone, for instance, was only installed many years after his death. The stonecutter engraves on a gravestone whatever he is told, and the family member may be wrong in the information furnished. Ditto for genealogical sites  and what someone wrote in a family history, perhaps years after the facts noted. A book such as Lochte is considered a more reliable source, by Wikipedia standards,  than your family history information. Edison (talk) 04:21, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Genealogy edit?

message: Extensive edits were done by 68.121.84.213  on June 4 to the biography section and the inventions section, and rather than revert to the earlier version, I wish to discuss with the anonymous editor some of the points he or she added. The edit appears to be a cut and paste from a web site, since it has numerous instances of "CLICK TO SEE MORE STORY." which do nothing. I suggest that to achieve the "neutral point of view" required for Wiki articles, that the newly added claims be clarified and made into a section of "claims made by Stubblefield supporters" much as has been done in controversies like whether Swan invented the incandescent light before Edison.
First there is the sentence " But since Nathan is considered to be the foremost inventor and patent holder of the Wireless Telephone™, this matter has become controversial with a number of people, especially in the U.S. where to an entirely new generation, the words that defines the wireless telephone isn't "radio," -- it's still the "wireless telephone," which encompasses, cell phones and v-phones, etc."
Per books on radio history, and even the article in Wiki on radio history, Stubblefield is not considered to be the "foremost inventor and patent holder of the Wireless Telephone™." Also he has no trademark in the use of "wireless telephone" which is a common descriptive phrase.  What are "v-phones?"
Paragraph 2: Where were "guidance mediums " used in 1908? This reference could be removed without detracting from the claims made for Stubblefield. I suggest "wireless telegraphy" as a more standard term than "the Morse Code Dit Dahs." What does the editor mean by "EMW?" Google and Wiki furnish such candidates as "Evangelical Movement of Wales," "Eisenacher Motoren Werke" and "Early Modern Women." His patents and other documents from his era show him using voice frequency transmissions (base band) without any radio frequency waves. His son and co-worker Bernard, told researchers in the 1960's that Nathan never used radio waves, but instead used voice frequency transmission. (Lochte book). Per the Wiki article "voice frequency," these extend from about 300 Hz to 4300 Hz. In no article or document I have seen from Stubblefield's era (patent documents, newspaper article, letters ) did he use the term "NBS-handi mobileTele." so that could be removed from the article. Inventing new names for his inventions does not help to present an accurate account of his work suitable for an encyclopedia. Nowhere in his patents and other writings have I seen a claim that it could be connected to land-lines.  The phrase "Like today's Internet VoIP network, utilizing a WiFi router connected to Verizon, Sprint or AT&T's land-lines." does not add information about Stubblefield's work.
The paragraph about the Ky Governor proclaiming Stubblefield the inventor of radio does not make it so, but such recognitions are fine to mention, in that they note the fact that some people recognize his work.
But then there is the paragraph, once again referring to "EMW" which says Marconi and Tesla used their EMW spark generators to broadcast voice and music" I don't think they are known to have broadcast either voice or music with sparks. A.F Collins reported he (Collins) had made high frequency voice broadcasts in 1899, using an electric arc as the source of high frequency waves. The Wiki article about Fessenden says "On December 23, 1900 he transmitted his own voice over the first wireless telephone from a site on Cobb Island in the middle of the Potomac River near Washington, DC." This was using actual voice modulated radio waves rather than voice frequency transmission like Stubblefield. Fessenden sent out widely heard high frequency voice modulated music and voice on Christmas eve 1906 from Brant Rock, Mass. All this was before Stubblefield's patent 887,357 for voice frequency inductive transmission between moving trains and a station. 
The next paragraph refers to Stubblefield's "pioneering work in wireless RF telecommunications technology" but I have never seen evidence of his having generated radio frequency waves. A source is needed for this info, as well as for his "work with the U.S. Signal Corps in the virtual integration of EMW ground energy voice transmission with land-line Sidebanding, hardware and switchboard technology." I have not seen any documents to show he worked with the Signal Corps, so a citation would be appropriate.A source is needed to back up the claim "EMW telephone sideband technology, earned his company, the Flying Machine patent. CLICK TO SEE MORE STORY." and there is nothing to "click."
What was the "collapse in the Dit-Dah morse code industry in 1920"? Citation? There was a stock collapse in the actual radio industry because of speculation. It was the dot-com bubble of its era. 
There is reference to Tesla "spectacular spark towers that caused shattering atmospheric phenomenons" after 1922, but the Tesla article in Wiki says the towers were demolished by the time of WW1. The paragraph stating "It was at the Radio Act of 1912" does not seem relevant to a Stubblefield article.
The next paragraph starts "Through all of this, since 1908, Stubblefield has remained the sole claimant for the invention of Wireless Telephony and its RF spectrums." The article in Wiki on radio history, and most works on radio history, disagree with this in the extreme, and it is not at all neutral point of view. It could well be stated "Stubblefield supporters argue that.." and then the claims could be presented, but an evenhanded and objective article would present that this is a minority view. Stubblefield's 1908 patent 887,357 did not give him any general patent on broadcasting the human voice, but it was just for an improvement in communication between points using voice frequency (not modulated carrier). It was very similar to Edison's patent from the 1880's, which used audio frequency induction to communicate a Morse code audio frequency buzzer current from trains to a nearby wire and back. I have seen no evidence Nathan Stubblefield  used RF spectrums, so that his radio spectra were not "confiscated by regulatory seizure" in 1918. I have not seen evidence that anyone other than Stubblefield in his experiments in Murray, KY was using Stubblefield's patented system after 1908.
All of the above belongs in the following section, Inventions, rather than in Biography. In Inventions, I find "Among the methods Stubblefield used to operate all of his wireless RF devices were: 1. electro-magnetic induction 2. electric current dispersion [wired] 3. electro-static induction 4. electro-magnetic waves, and a 5. combination use of the 4 methods -- using compatable antenna's. The first and fourth methods were demonstrated by Stubblefield." Here again some substantiation is needed that he ever generated RF waves. It is generally agreed that he transmitted and received voice and music by electromagnetic induction, using telephones and circular coils of wire, and that he transmitted and received voice and music by conduction, with a telephone connected to two ground rods or to two wires dropped into the water from a boat. Citations are needed to back up the claim that he used "electrostatic induction" or "electromagnetic waves," the latter of which would imply radio frequency waves. The earth (or water) conduction used from the steamer Bartholdi in Washington DC in 1902 could well be termed "electric current dispersion" but I would leave off the word "wired" since the whole point is it was wireless once the current left the ground or water terminals of his transmitter! 
The sentence starting "In 1885, Stubblefield reportedly succeeded in sending voice between two parallel antennas by utilizing the same principles Ward and Loomis developed " is not supported by any reference I have found. Please document or it should be deleted. "By 1890, NBS was using these methods to transmit and receive understandable human voice." Please document or it should be deleted. Rainy T. Wells said he had heard a voice transmission in 1892. Stubblefield could have done this by his known methods of earth conduction or electromagnetic induction by coils of wire. Documentation is needed beyond sensational newspaper articles written decades later without referenced sources.
So, in summary, I propose that the pre-June 4 edit be in the article, since most claims there are well referenced, and that the claims made by the June 4 editor be edited to a listing of additional claims which are not so well substantiated, the latter section documenting not the fact that he did them, but the fact that some believe he did them. For that purpose, the references would be made to who makes the claim. This would be consistent with how Wikipedia handles other controversies.Edison 16:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Notes on edits of June 4, 2006

message: So now 204.56.7.1  has added a note that the article is unbalanced and needs cleanup. I agree, but am fairly new to Wiki. What do we do, just revert to the version before June 4? I think my suggestion of presenting mainstream versus extreme claims is a valid one. But that places me in the position of enunciating the claims of those who think all radio is based on Stubblefield's work. There are several well sourced claims in the version before that date. Yesterday I searched the New York Times online and found that for "wireless telephone" and "wireless telephony" Stubblefield's demonstrations were about the first reported to the general public. The Times did not distinguish in those days between voice frequency induction,   modulated light beam , and other evolutionary dead ends  which helped to develop interest in wireless telephony before the electric arc transmitter, the high frequency alternator, and finally the vacuum tube transmitter brought radio to the world.Edison 03:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: More anonymous editing of June 7

message: ;Inventions
• Nathan B. Stubblefield (November 22, 1860 - March 28, 1928) was an American inventor and Kentucky-born Educator, founder of Teléph-on-délgreen Industrial School built on his 85 acre melon farmland. Teléph-on-délgreen, is now the campus of Murray State University, Murray, Kentucky.
• But since Nathan is considered to be the foremost inventor and patent holder of the Wireless Telephone™, this matter has become controversial with a number of people, especially in the U.S. where to an entirely new generation, the words that defines the wireless telephone isn't "radio," -- it's still the "wireless telephone," which encompasses, cell phones and v-phones, etc.
• By 1908, broadcasting voice by Wireless Telephone, the Morse Code Dit Dahs, and guidance signals, were three distinct mediums, Nathan's 1908 patent drawings illustrates his ability to transmit EMW voice through the atmosphere utilizing either a grounded aerial or a coil loop antenna system. His NBS-handi mobileTele had the ability to communicate with all types of moving vehicles, as well as connecting into an existing telephone companies land-line customer base. Like today's Internet VoIP network, utilizing a WiFi router connected to Verizon, Sprint or AT&T's land-lines.
• In 1992, the Governor of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, issued a proclamation and passed a symbolic official notice, recognizing that Nathan B. Stubblefield was the true inventor of radio, and should be so recognized internationally as such, and that Murray in the Commonwealth of Kentucky be recognized as the birthplace of radio, and that the year 1992 be proclaimed as the NATHAN BEVERLY STUBBLEFIELD YEAR IN KENTUCKY IN RECOGNITION OF HIS ACCOMPLISHMENT - SEE KENTUCKY GOVERNOR'S PROCLAMATION.
• Confirmed by telecommunication historical timelines, other wireless achievers and award winners like Marconi, Tesla and Fessenden did advanced their EMW Spark generators to broadcast voice and music, but it is equally clear that when they did, the broadcasts occurred after Stubblefield's demonstrations and patent recordations. England retained the name "wireless" for broadcasting, while the U.S renamed it, "Radio."
•  In addition to Stubblefield's pioneering work in wireless RF telecommunications technology, from 1882 to 1898, he was also responsible for important advances in the science of acoustical audio transmission, and to the advancements of the mechanics in the integration of the telephone and the perpendicular Antenna. His work with the U.S. Signal Corps in the virtual integration of EMW ground energy voice transmission with land-line Sidebanding, hardware and switchboard technology. EMW telephone sideband technology, earned his company, the Flying Machine patent. CLICK TO SEE MORE STORY.
• In 1888, 1898 and 1908 respectively, Nathan was issued patents for his Mechanical Telephone, his EMW Earth Batteries, and his legendary 1908 Wireless Telephone System.
• By 1920, the Wireless Radio Telephone and Telegraph companies that once bragged of being the 'Radio' in the Wireless Radio were nearly undone by the collapse in the Dit Dah Morse Code industry, and by the regulatory seizure of assets authorized by several acts of Congress, in 1912 and during World War One.
• It was at the Radio Act of 1912, that was to prevent amateur radio boys from interupting govenment spectrums. But it was during this time, that the Dit Dah Morse Code industry was being side swiped by the rapid growth of the many amateur radio boy clubs, that bought radio kits to start their own Dit Dah broadcast networks. Their Radio Boys efforts in broadcasting helped sustain the growth of Amateur business. By 1922, there were over 15,000 members in the U.S.
It wasn't long after this happened, that the genius of Tesla converged on spectacular spark towers that caused earth shattering atmospheric phenomenons. He died, (July 10, 1856 - January 7, 1943).
• Through all of this, since 1908, Stubblefield has remained the sole claimant for the invention of Wireless Telephony and its RF spectrums. Nathan was issued the Patent for 17 years to manufacturer and broadcast the human voice spectrum, But, like Marconi and Tesla, by 1918, all of Nathan's RF spectrums were confiscated by regulatory seizure. The FCC, in 2005, reported the auction sales of Wireless Telephone frequencies, brought in more than $27-billion. CLICK TO SEE MORE STORY. and CLICK TO SEE MORE STORY.
• As for Fessenden, in 1928, the same year Stubblefield died, and one year after his patent expired, Fessenden was paid over $2.5 million after a prolonged lawsuit against the Radio Trust, which included RCA, AT&T, GE and the Western Electric Company. CLICK TO SEE MORE STORY - ReginaldFessendenWins1928
The physics club of Murray State University is named after Nathan B. Stubblefield, in his honor. CLICK TO NBS STUDY ON REGULATORY SEIZURE.
• Nathan B. Stubblefield (11/22/1860-3/28/1928) was the second of seven sons (Walter Watt 6/27/59, James Franklin 10/25/62, Louis Shelly 6/27/64, Robert Reginald 11/26/65, William Victor 1/27/68 and Harry Lee 9/26/71) of a lawyer, William "Capt. Billy" Jefferson Stubblefield (1830-1874), and Victoria Bowman Stubblefield (died 1869). Stubblefield lived in Murray, Kentucky. He was orphaned in 1874. Stubblefield was tutored by a governess and later attended a boarding school called the "Male and Female Institute" in Farmington, until his father died.  He also educated himself by reading whatever publications were available in Murray, such as The Scientific American and Electrical World. He married Ada Mae Buchannan in 1881. They had nine children, three of whom died in infancy. His son Bernard was his primary assistant in the wireless telephone experiments. From 1907 to 1911, Stubblefield operated a home school called "The Nathan Stubblefield Industrial School," or "Teléph-on-délgreen" on land that is now the campus of Murray State University.(Lochte)
According to Murray State University Professor Ray Mofield, Stubblefield invented the wireless telephone, or radio.  Stubblefield experimented with electricity in the 1880's, and caused distinct vibration tremors of a compass needle using an earth battery of his invention, patented in 1898. 
• By 1890, Stubblefield discovered there were several methods by which articulate speech could be transmitted between two given points without connecting wires, or wireless telephony, as it is was popularly termed at the time. Among the methods Stubblefield used to operate all of his wireless RF devices were:
1. electro-magnetic induction
2. electric current dispersion [wired]
3. electro-static induction
4. electro-magnetic waves, and a
5. combination use of the 4 methods -- using compatable antenna's. The first and fourth methods were demonstrated by Stubblefield. 
• By 1890, Stubblefield used all of the methods to transmit and receive articulate voice, depending on ground and atmospheric conditions. 
Nathan was also the first to use a loudspeaker with his wireless system.In 1885, Stubblefield reportedly succeeded in sending voice between two parallel antennas by utilizing the same principles Ward and Loomis developed in sending damped signals but instead of using damped spark signal, Nathan used a continuous low-frequency undamped electric wave dispersion system.
It was limited in distance, but wireless(needs supporting citation). 
• By 1890, NBS was using these methods to transmit and receive understandable human voice. He was the first to use a loudspeaker with his wireless (See Photos nbs10.com).  Lochte has argued that when Stubblefield spoke of "wireless" telephony in the 1880's he merely meant his acoustic telephone, which could operate with string. However, in the 1880's Scientific American had already carried articles describing attempts at wireless telephony and telegraphy experiments by induction systems of Trowbridge, Preece, Phelps, and Edison, not using high frequency radio waves, so Stubblefield was likely familiar with all the principles needed to operate  wireless telepnony by induction as well as by conduction in the 1880s. He made private demonstrations of wireless telephony in 1892. Rainey T. Wells was one of the first persons to hear Stubblefield's wireless voice transmissions, in that year.
Wireless telegraphy using damped high frequency radio waves was demonstrated in 1894 by Sir Oliver Lodge, but that system could not carry voice messages or music(see Radio article).
In 1898, Stubblefield was issued a patent for an "Electric battery" (, which comprised an electrolytic coil). 
He made public demonstrations of voice and music transmission to five receiving locations on the courthouse square in Murray January 1, 1902, witnessed by at least 1,000 persons, apparently using voice frequency transmission through earth conduction, to a radius of one-half mile. Later he demonstrated wireless telephony in Washington, D.C. on March 20, 1902, where voice and music transmissions were made over a third of a mile from the steamer Bartholdi to shore. He demonstrated wireless telephony as well in Philadelphia on May 30, 1902 to a distance of a half mile. Tests in New York City in June, 1902 were less successful because of electrical interference from alternating current power in widespread use there. He joined wireless inventor Archie Frederick Collins and stock promoters in the Wireless Telephone Company of America, but resigned in disgust in June, 1902 (Lochte). 
Back home in Murray, he continued to experiment with wireless telephony, using large circular conduction coils to transmit voice frequencies to receiving stations. In 1903, he could transmit 375 feet without earth connections, using induction. In 1904, he could transmit 423 yards. The total wire required for the transmitting and receiving coils was of a greater length than what would be required to simply interconnect the transmitter and receiver, but the invention would allow mobility. By 1907, with a 60 foot transmitting coil, he could work 1/4 mile or 1320 feet "nicely." He received patent 887,357 for his Wireless Telephone, using the voice frequency induction system, on May 12, 1908. He said in the patent that it would be useful for "securing telephonic communications between moving vehicles and way stations." The diagram shows wireless telephony from trains, boats, and wagons. In foreign patents he showed wireless telephony with cars. But there is no indication he was using voice modulated continuous high frequency waves, as are used for radio today(Lochte). 
Reginald Fessenden had already made a widely heard radio voice broadcast, using rotary spark gap transmitter, on December 24, 1906. His technique was in fact voice modulated high frequency radio transmission. Regular news broadcasts using vacuum tube technology became common by 1920 (Wikipedia article on Radio).
Stubblefield's inventions did not lead directly to radio as the technology works today, but the public demonstrations in 1902 and the press coverage in the New York Times, the Philadelphia Enquirer, the Washington Post, the Louisville Courier Journal, Scientific American, and elsewhere may have helped to spur public interest in the possibilities of wireless transmission of voice and music. Most other inventors of the era sought to provide point-to point messaging, to compete with the telephone and telegraph companies. Stubblefield in the 1902 was in a sense the "Father of Broadcasting, in that he said to the St. Louis Post Dispatch reporter in 1902, "..it is capable of sending simultaneous messages from a central distributing station over a very wide territory. For instance, anyone having a receiving instrument, which would consist merely of a telephone receiver and a signalling gong, could, upon being signalled by a transmitting station in Washington, or nearer, if advisable, be informed of weather news. My apparatus is capable of sending out a gong signal, as well as voice messages. Eventually, it will be used for the general transmission of news of every description."
From 1885 to 1913, Stubblefield invented, developed, manufactured and sold, both his wired mechanical telephone, and his wireless telephone systems through his own companies, partnerships or corporations he owned shares of stock in. The companies he was involved in were the NBS Enterprises, The Wireless Telephone Company of America, The Gehring-Fennell-Stubblefield Group, The Continental Wireless Tel.& Tel Company, The Collins Wireless Telephone Company, and Teléph-on-délgreen(citation needed). 
Stubblefield's business partners ultimately irreparably damaged his developments and left him bankrupt. Stubblefield later lived in a self-imposed isolation in a crude shelter near Almo, Kentucky and eventually, starved to death. Stubblefield destroyed every prototype he made. He was buried in the Bowman Cemetery in Murray, Kentucky (Calloway County).
Since his death, various individuals and groups in Murray, Kentucky have publicized Murray as the Birthplace of Radio, a claim which is not widely recognized, and Stubblefield as the Father of Broadcasting, a claim which has more merit. Loren J. Hortin, Journalism Professor at Murray State, organized his students to investigate Stubblefield's work, leading to the dedication of a monument on campus in 1930. Hortin later said "Radio is a device that transmits and receives voice over considerable distance without connecting wires. Stubblefield invented, manufactured, and demonstrated such a device and did so before anyone else on the planet." The radio station in Murray, WNBS, used Stubblefield's initials in its call letters. (Lochte)
----
Hertzian 14:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Moving text here; will sort out and put back in

message: The Nahin cite I added (Paul Nahin,"The Science of Radio, 2nd Ed" )Springer Verlag, NY 2001 is a very good one for it is from a reputable publishing house, not self-published like the books by Cory-Stubblefield and Lochte, and it is on the point of whether the voice transmissions were "radio" as we know it today. He says (p 7)that Loomis and Stubblefield both invented "wireless communication systems that used inductive effects. Such a system uses the energy in a non-propagating field (the so-called induction or near field); while wireless in a restricted sense, such a system is not really radio." He says that "there is litttle doubt he (Stubblefield) actually did achieve wireless voice transmission as early as 1892. Neither man (Loomis or Stubblefield), however, had built a radio, which utilizes high-frequency electromagnetic energy radiating through space."
At the same time I have added three articles from the New York Times which are contemporary accounts of what Stubblefield did. Later writers have conflated his work with that of Edison, Tesla, Dolbear, and God knows who else. The Stubblefield articles appear to be the first account in the NY Times of anyone transmitting and receiving the voice and music electrically without wires in the U.S.  I searched the term "wireless telephone" and "wireless telephony" for the NY Times prior to the 1902 Stubblefield demonstrations, back to 1857. "Radio" was a much later term.  Previous reports of a successful public demonstration of wireless voice broadcasting are pretty scarce in our national "newspaper of record."  Fessenden was doing actual radio voice broadcasting by 1906, and experimented before that. but no demonstrations reported before Stubblefield's. I found a reference to Fessenden: "Under the new system telephones are to be used for all short-distance signalling work, that is, up to about 100 miles".."Professor Fessenden believes that wireless telephones for that distance can be put in use now." but no public demonstration was described, only a "belief."("New Wireless System" NY Times April 28, 1902., p3) and that was after Stubblefields's public broadcasts. Radio history shows shameless stock promotion in that era, by promotors who did not really have any functioning wireles telephony system. There was a display ad  by "American Wireless Telephone and Telegraph Co. of Philadelphia, saying it had patent 350,299, issued Oct 5, 1886. This is the patent of Amos E. Dolbear, who had an inductive wireless telegraphy system for which he made claims  greater than he could substantiate. This appeared in the NY Times Nov 24, 1901, p. 18. There was no demonstration reported.  There was an article "Disputes Marconi's Claim" NY Times Oct 6, 1899, in which Dolbear said his (electorstatic or inductive, non radio wave) patent covered Marconi's work, and he wanted royalties for all wireless telegraphy and telephony, but no public demonstration was reported. There is a prior report of wireless voice transmission (induction) in "Wireless Telephony A Fact. Sir William H. Preece says he can convey speech without wires.", NY Times September 9, 1900, p 7.  Preece had told a scientific meeting that he had been able to "convey audible speech six to eight miles across the sea without wires." Other sources show he used long parallel wires, and  he also used coils of wire as transmitting and receiving units for voice frequency transmission. But again, it is only his report and not the greater risk announcing  a public demonstration like Stubblefield did.  Another article "In Foreign Lands", NY Times, Feb 4, 1901, p. 6 says that Preece first sent wireless voice messages in 1894, across Loch Ness, a distance of 1.3 miles, using 4 miles of wire on each side. In December, 1899, Preece used parallel wires to send voice messages 2.8 miles from the Skerries islands to the mainland. It says the service "has been in constant operation ever since."  I guess that counts as public demonstration, although technically it is just his word. No reporter was there. He also sent voice messages between parallel wires 4 miles from Rathlin Island to the Irish mainland.  Most interestingly, it says Preece also made a coil only 50 feet long in place of a straight wire of 1500 yards, achieving a transmission of "nearly 5 miles" and used it successfully instead of the long wire. This would anticipate Stubblefield's use of a coil in public demonstrations, except for the 1892 demonstration to Rainy T. Wells, which Wells first reported many decades later. Preece said he anticipated use of his system by ships. The same article quoted Le Figaro to the effect that "M. Maiche," not otherwise identified, "is now able to transmit speech through the earth for a distance of 1,000 or 1,200 yards." There was no account of a public demonstration, nor does it say where or when this was done, so it is not too compelling an account.  If Stubblefield kept up with publications, as he is reported to have done, he might have been familiar with these accounts before his first public voice broadcasting.  
In that era, there was no sense on the part of reputable newspapers that wireless telephony had to be done via modulated high frequency carrier wave. They reported as "wireless telephony" such things as drumbeats, mental telepathy, voice modulated light beam, and acoustic sensors used to detect ship screws.
Stubblefield still holds a claim to "first public demonstrations of wireless telephony in the US" in which voice and/or music were transmitted electrically without wires. This was the basic claim made for many decades by Dr. L. J. Hortin. The NY Times, Washington Post, Philadelphia Inquirer, St. Louis Post Dispatch, Louisville Courier Journal, and Scientific American accounts undoubtedly contributed to public interest in and experimental work on what eventually evolved into today's radio. I plan to boil this account down and place it in the "radio history" and Stubblefield articles. I hope that the editors currently hacking on this article do not throw away verifiable facts along with speculative or excessive claims.Edison 18:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Induction vs near field, Earliest Wireless Telephony Demonstration

message: At Google books I found  pages 714-715 which gives a good account of the state of the aret of others working in similar technology. This is Applton's Annual Cyclopedia for 1899. Edison 19:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Induction/ground conduction telephony and telegraphy in the 19th century

message: I removed to here the following info about his descendants. I'm not sure if it belongs in the article about Nathan Stubblefield, since other biographical articles do not generally go on to give the life stories of the descendants of the individual, but it does not belong in the section "Final years." Nathan B. Stubblefield's only grandson is Troy Cory-Stubblefield who has done much research of published books and articles on his Grandfather and his great grand daughter Priscilla Stubblefield-Cory, who is a singing artist and actress, she co-starred in the televison movie, "Deadman's Curve", 1978, the life story of Jan and Dean and numerous others. As well as her father Troy Stubblefield-Cory.  I had heard Stubblefield had a grandson named Troy Whitenack. Is that the same person? Also, any statements about living individuals must have references from reliable sources, per the policy WP:BLP.
 Troy Whitenack is Troy Cory Stubblefield the only remaining grandson of Nathan B, Stubblefield. The author of The Wireless Telephone the Movie (The Deal To Steal) https://www.amazon.com/Wireless-Telephone-Movie®TM©-Troy-Cory-Stubblefield/dp/1883644445/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=wireless+telephone+the+movie&qid=1552312656&s=books&sr=1-1  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.170.72.252 (talk) 14:00, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Final years

message: See  which has an interesting analysis of Stubblefield's contributions along with developments in the 1990's. Edison 23:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Refs relevant to this article and to pre-history of radio

message: Someone created a redlink to that other inventor, writer, and stock promoter. I have some information on Collins life and work, but have never found a date of death. If anyone can point to an obituary or other reliable source for Collin's death (presumably in the 1940's or 1950's) I could create that related article. Edison (talk) 15:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Archie Frederick Collins]]

message: Speech is sound. Writing that a device transmits "both sound and speech" is superfluous and doesn't sound right, so i corrected that. Please explain how this constitutes vandalism before reverting it again. Edits by unregistered users are not vandalism by default, as some people here seem to believe.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.4.123.54 (talk) 15:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism?

message: I undid some edits by Earlyradioman which removed or altered  referenced text so as to exaggerate Stubblefield's contribution to radio technology. References show him to have used audio frequency induction and earth/water conduction, and no reliable sources were added to support claims he used radio frequency broadcasting with amplitude modulation. Edison (talk) 19:24, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree, it seemed to be a case of WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. I would note a problem (not fixed in either edit) that the lead seems to be a series of arguments instead of an article summary. Just something noticed for future cleanup. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:17, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: You are free to edit but you will find other editors reverting if you seem to be inserting original research. Using your own "research" into Stubblefield's life and family is fine, filling out biographical points. Building article content on your research into patents may be too much for Wikipedia, Wikipedia does not accept original research but you can cite patents to fill in basic biographical information, such noting his inventions. You seemed to be trying to state Stubblefield was in the running as one of the inventors of radio. The citations you offered (virginmedia.com) notes the same thing that Lochte notes, that this was induction/conduction, not radio, and other sources do not mention Stubblefield at all. I noted myself that parts of the article read more as an argument than a description, but that may be because it was copied from a Wikipedia history of radio article or section. It could be cleaned up. virginmedia.com should be noted in the links section at least. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:25, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

text: Earlyradioman will have to point out what sections he thinks are copied from Lochte's book, and we can correct that if there is any such copying. The article includes many sources published long before Lochte started his research on Stubblefield. Better sources than Lochte describe Stubblefield as using audio frequency transmission and not radio frequency transmission. This article pre -2005 was full of incorrect statements about Stubblefield using continuous wave undamped radio transmissions and the like, which are not born out by artifacts, photographs, and patents.  Claims that "He invented modern radio, with high frequency amplitude modulated waves, but just patented audio frequency conduction and induction" should not be placed in the article without reliable sources, which do not include Youtube or the like. Some of the sources Earlyradioman lists are clearly not what Wikipedia considers to be reliable sources, specifically the Youtube one. Genealogy websites like MyHeritage are not generally considered reliable sources, since they are user-contributed. I feel the focus should be more on his technical work and less on his father's second wife or his half-sister's genealogy, which should not be given an unduly large portion of the article, unless it is somehow documented that such factors caused him to be the person he was. An "Early life" section could contain brief discussion of his family, and his father's papers could be a ref. They did not look legible in the view linked to, but there might be a way around that.   The best way forward is probably to draft changes to the article here, one section at a time. The article can be improved in form from what is now there, especially the odd way the references are arranged. One "References" section and one "Notes" section, wherein pages from the references are cited, is probably the best form for referencing, since the same book or article might need to be cited at various points, with different pages cited. Is that agreeable? Stubblefield was a farmer and experimenter, and  an educator (at least as a "home schooler.") "Electrical engineer"  might be an exaggeration. One would have to see the term used by reliable and independent sources to describe Stubblefield. . A "farmer and self-taught electrical experimenter" or "electrical technologist" would be quite accurate. Does that sound fair?  He was a farmer, and I agree that "melon farmer" sounds dismissive. He may well have grown a variety of crops.  Edison (talk) 01:30, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Stubblefield's contribution

message: Substituted at 00:52, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: As per the template documentation, non-notable parents, children, and causes of death should not be included in . This edit should be restored. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:43, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template documentation