Talk:Timeline of United States inventions (after 1991)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I Dispute Tesla's Claim about the invention of radio[edit]

Is this how radio works? Or is this “radio” something that does not yet exist? And probably will NEVER exist?. How can you say that Tesla invented radio based on this? This is preposterous!!!!! Does wikipedia subscribe to this sort of unscientific gibberish claims? this is tanatmount to black magic....not radio!! User:Altes 2009 (talk)

Tesla's four tuned circuit system of transmission of electrical energy predates linear/nonlinear amplifying devices such as the triode vacuum tube which would be used in later designs as modulators and amplifiers, itself eventually supplanted by the transistor. Tesla's used his own coil design now called the Tesla Coil as a tuned resonant circuit that could produce high frequency high voltage signals suitable for transmission on an antenna. The fact that Tesla's design used primitive resonance circuitry does not make it an invalid design, one that he himself built, demonstrated, and patented. This sort of primitive radio was in use until about the 1920's. Tesla's original transmitter design used earth ground as a reference potential for his resonating coils to build potential difference against.

So to answer your question.

No it is not how a modern radio works, improvements have been made with modern amplifying technology, but it is how Tesla's radio worked.

Yes that radio did exist, and was demonstrated.

Unless you have serious evidence that disputes the volume of wiki data and other evidence available describing the four tuned circuit transmitter/receiver (Ref US Patent 645,576) and Tesla's demonstrations of wireless technology (Ref Wireless Energy Transfer) then I do not consider the content of this article in dispute.

Mikethemoose (talk) 00:12, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MikeMoose.... it is best not to egg Altes2009 on... he trolls all of the talk pages... Italian inventions, Invention of radio, Gugliegmo Marconi, etc trying to get a rouse out of those who will listen... Back to the radio.... though... Altes2009 claims that Tesla does not have a claim to the invention of the radio... yet if he would listen and read for a change, then his reservations would be put to rest.

This is directly from the 1943 United States Supreme Court decision which overturned every one of Marconi's patents concerning radio....

"Marconi's reputation as the man who first achieved successful radio transmission rests on his original patent, which became reissue No. 11,913, and which is not here [320 U.S. 1, 38] in question. That reputation, however well-deserved, does not entitle him to a patent for every later improvement which he claims in the radio field. Patent cases, like others, must be decided not by weighing the reputations of the litigations, but by careful study of the merits of their respective contentions and proofs. As the result of such a study we are forced to conclude, without undertaking to determine whether Stone's patent involved invention, that the Court of Claims was right in deciding that Stone anticipated Marconi, and that Marconi's patent did not disclose invention over Stone. Hence the judgment below holding invalid the broad claims of the Marconi patent must be affirmed."Yoganate79 (talk) 20:46, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious[edit]

Sourcing of the Claim about the Inventor of Blogging[edit]

The source given for the claim that Dr Glen Barry is the inventor of blogging is ActNow, a voluntary organization that encourages young people to become members and contribute articles, so somewhat equivalent to Wikipedia. ActNow's article does not specify the source of its information. I don't think ActNow is a suitably reputable and reliable source for the claim. In any case, the question of who invented blogging seems to be a subject of some controversy, partly due to the nebulous definition of a blog, and needs more lengthy discussion, such as occurs in three other Wikipedia articles: Blog, History of blogging and Online diary. Cimbalom (talk) 10:31, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Split[edit]

I have split the page into three sections as will be apparent. I have left the lead more or less intact on all three pages, and have not created a lead for the parent page. The individual leads may require modification, and some of the material could be moved to the parent page if thought appropriate. I chose the split points to correspond to major historical sections and on the basis that the latest section is most likely to grow. Other choices or further splitting would be quite reasonable. Rich Farmbrough, 12:11, 5 July 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Hi Rich... Thanks for doing something that I have been meaning to do for a very very long time. I've just been too busy and rather lazy to getting around to doing a split of the inventions. I have been actively involved on U.S. inventions for about 3 years now. Here are some thoughts of mine. If you do not mind, I would like to now tweak the introductions and the lead paragraphs for all three historical timelines. Meaning, I would like to make them specific to the time periods being featured.
There is one problem though that I think needs to be addressed. It is about the original "Timeline of United States inventions". We need to determine its new purpose and what pertinent information, if anything, it should contain. In addition, the title of the page itself really does not reflect a timeline anymore. So what I propose is to rename Timeline of United States inventions and move it to a new page called United States inventions (This was the name of the page about 2 years ago) since it is in fact, no longer a timeline but merely just a starting point that directs to other corresponding pages on timelines of U.S. inventions (Which you created).Yoganate79 (talk) 19:53, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My input... I thought the page was more impressive before as one page. When I first saw that page, I was like "wow". I know this goes against conventional wisdom of long scrolling pages, but I take great exception here... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.198.31.149 (talk) 23:35, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Global Positioning System[edit]

The Global Positioning System is listed under 1993, when it achieved initial operational capability. However, the nanowire battery is listed under 2007, even though a prototype has yet to be completed. To be consistent, the Global Positioning System should then be listed under 1973, when, according to its article, "the real synthesis that became GPS was created." Psalm 119:105 (talk) 10:43, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with File:Bionic contacts.jpg[edit]

The image File:Bionic contacts.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --03:19, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Composite aircraft flying in 1983[edit]

The Beech Starship, which has a wikipedia entry under that exact name, was first flown in August of 1983. To suggest that the Boeing Dreamliner is the first is factually incorrect. Obviously, this item should be pulled from the post 1991 section and placed in the prior section.Homebuilding (talk) 03:29, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trongs[edit]

I do not think that "trongs" are very representative of inventions in the U.S. As such I do not think they should be included in this article. They are not a major invention, nor are they well known at all. Reportingsjr (talk) 09:27, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I tried removing it but I wasn't supposed to. We're supposed to vote on it or something. How many votes does the internets need? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.176.63.70 (talk) 04:56, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree that it should be removed. Not noteworthy at all in this category. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.225.121.217 (talk) 04:46, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I also think it should be removed, it's obviously vandalism. --71.191.55.23 (talk) 00:01, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is this page really worth having?[edit]

Any notable invention is already listed on its own page. The set of inventions that are listed here are selected in some very odd way -- e.g. by somebody who liked Dean Kamen and somebody who liked Amy Smith. These are not the most important inventions, they are not the most notable, they are not the ones that changed the world the most, they are merely whatever some partisan threw in here. There is already a [Category:American inventions] that has an alphabetically ordered list of inventions by Americans, which has many hundreds of inventions in it. Shouldn't this page be removed? Gnuish (talk) 01:47, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Doggles?[edit]

Do "Doggles" belong with the CMOS Image Sensor, the mouse scroll wheel, and JavaScript? Seems like an advertisement to me. 2606:A000:1215:C280:20BC:6A6B:5479:F9FF (talk) 23:51, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Timeline of United States inventions (after 1991)/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

; Beautiful

This article is very well researched and formatted nicely. The page doesn't detract viewers due to its length. I believe that this page isn't intended to be read word for word and line by line. This is a timeline, a quick reference where the reader can skim down the page and pick and choose what they want to read. It is a long page, but it is also shows quality which counts, and not quantity.

What I most admire about this page is its completeness and the references/citations. This page I give 5 stars. --Zeppher (talk) 02:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary original research
This timeline does not establish clear criteria in its introduction for inclusion; while well-written, it appears to be a synthesis which violates the policy of No original research. It is also too long. 67.100.222.20 (talk) 20:48, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Substituted at 05:18, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Timeline of United States inventions (after 1991). 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:49, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

About the invention since 2010.[edit]

About the invention since 2010.

There aren't nothing invention that invented since 2010. - 191.205.248.228 (talk) 16:44, 11 August 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Are you sure about this? Nothings been invented in the US since 2010? Kitamura290 (talk) 19:50, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Timeline_of_United_States_inventions_(after_1991)&oldid=1210724028"