Marconi does deserve some credit for doing something with it, but it does appear that Tesla was the real inventor. How often has this happened even up to today, the marketing guys get the credit and the $$...
On my PC the image is cut off and you can hardly see the tower. If you right click and then click "Open image in new tab" you'll get the full thing. (this in Chrome - does not work in IE, but if you click reply, you get a bigger version showing the whole tower, then just go back).
This is Richard (Rick) Lyons, your fellow instructor at Besser Associates.
(I hope all is well with you.)
I've been reading a book about Nikola Tesla.
History books claim that Italian experimenter Guglielmo Marconi invented radio. The fact is, the first person to implement radio transmission and reception was the enigmatic American engineer Nikola Tesla in 1895. In late 1901, with the backing of wealthy benefactors, Marconi became famous for transmitting and receiving Morse code signals across the Atlantic Ocean. What wasn't advertised was the fact that Marconi used Tesla-invented oscillators for that transatlantic demonstration. Battles over patents raged between Tesla and Marconi for decades. With the drop of their gavel in 1943, a few months after Tesla's death, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld patent number 645,576—Tesla's original radio patent. Sadly, historians have ignored that court decision.
After Marconi's theft of information from Tesla,I personally can give hime no credit for anyhthing wireless.His knowledge was built upon a theft of intellecual property from Tesla,and was not discovered until after Tesla's death.Likewise with his wirelss telephony.It is probably another heretofor undiscovered theft from Tesla.Tesla had already invented wireless control of model boats and cars before this,so how far of a stretch is it for wirless telephony? It should have been named Marconi-phoney. IMHO,just another famous thief.
Yes, I read about that too. The "human" remains that were found under Dr. Crippen's cellar floor were not readily identifiable - in fact, they weren't even sure if the remains were human. There were no bones, extremities, or organs. My understanding there was only "skin".
Dr. Crippen's wife had lost her baby years before while they lived in America and the procedure left a scar on the skin of her tummy. THAT SCAR was the PRIMARY evidence that the prosecution used to support their claim that it was his wife.
However, the defense argued that a scar can not have hair growing out of it, which it did, but somehow they lost this argument. I'd welcome any doctors comments about scar tissue and hair being able to grow out/thru scar tissue (why? why not?).
I think the strongest evidence that he did murder her, was the fact that she never showed up later in life. Where'd she go? Dr. Crippen said that she died while in the US and was cremated, but no crematorium ever acknoledged that! He said she was cremated somewhere in California. I'm would expect that experts have searched exhaustively for her death and cremation certificate and never found it.
The book "Thunderstruck" is definitely recommended reading. It focuses on the dual stories of the Crippen murder and Marconi's struggle to develop and commercialize his wireless telegraphy system. While written for a general audience, it will likely be especially appreciated by this site's technical audience.
Interestingly, regarding the murder and subsequent conviction and execution of Hawley Crippen, more recent evidence in the form of DNA analysis has some forensic experts suggesting that Crippen was in fact innocent.
Drones are, in essence, flying autonomous vehicles. Pros and cons surrounding drones today might well foreshadow the debate over the development of self-driving cars. In the context of a strongly regulated aviation industry, "self-flying" drones pose a fresh challenge. How safe is it to fly drones in different environments? Should drones be required for visual line of sight – as are piloted airplanes? Join EE Times' Junko Yoshida as she moderates a panel of drone experts.