WirelessRevisited

8/7/2019 WirelessRevisited

1/34

The Johns Hopkins University PressSociety for the History of Technologyhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3106504 .

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=jhup. .

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

The Johns Hopkins University Press and Society for the History of Technology are collaborating with JSTOR

to digitize, preserve and extend access to Technology and Culture.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=jhuphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=shothttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3106504?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=jhuphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=jhuphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3106504?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=shothttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=jhup


2/34

Marconiand theMaxwellians:TheOriginsof WirelessTelegraphyRevisitedSUNGOOK HONG

The point is which of the two was the first to send awireless telegram? Was it Lodge in 1894 or Marconi in1896? [SILvANUSP.THOMPSON,LondonTimes,July15, 1902]

We live in a world where technological priority disputes and patentlitigation are so commonplace that only a spectacular case, such asKodakversus Polaroid over the instant camera, attracts our attention. Inthe past two hundred years, such disputes have become increasinglyfrequent. Notable examples include those over the invention of spin-ning machines (John Hargreaves vs. Richard Arkwright), steelmaking(Henry Bessemer vs. William Kelly), the incandescent lamp (ThomasEdison vs. Joseph Swan), the telephone (Alexander Graham Bell vs.Elisha Gray), the airplane (the Wright brothers vs. Samuel Langley), andamplifiers and the heterodyne principle in radio (Lee De Forest vs.Edwin Howard Armstrong).Historians of technology, however, have generally paid little attentionto the conflicting priority claims themselves, except when priority andpatent disputes can be used as a window through which the character-istics of the evolution of technology are analyzed.' There are twowell-grounded reasons for this neglect. First, unlike scientific discover-

DR HONGreceived his Ph.D. from Seoul National University with the dissertation"Forging the Scientist-Engineer:A Professional Career ofJohn Ambrose Fleming" and isworking on the science-technology relationship in power and early radio engineering. HethanksJed Buchwald, Bert Hall, Bruce Hunt,Janis Langins, and the Technologyand Culturereferees for their valuable comments. He is indebted to Professor Thad Trenn of theUniversity of Toronto and Roy Rodwell of the Marconi Company Archives for their helpwith the archives quoted here, and he thanks Youngran Jo, Shinkyu Yang, Jane Jenkins,Andre Leblanc, and Ben Olshin for their assistance, as well as the Institute of Electricaland Electronics Engineers Fellowship in Electrical History for facilitating the research.'See, e.g., the important research of David E. Hounshell, "Elisha Gray and theTelephone: On the Disadvantage of Being an Expert," Technologyand Culture16 (1975):133-61; Robert C. Post, "StraySparks from the Induction Coil: The Volta Prize and thePage Patent," Proceedingsof theInstituteofElectricaland ElectronicsEngineers(IFEE)64 (1976):1279-86; James E. Brittain, "The Introduction of the Loading Coil: George A. Campbell

? 1994 by the Society for the History of Technology. All rights reserved.0040-165X/94/3504-0004$01.00717


3/34

718 SungookHongies, priority disputes in technology often develop into patent litigation,which ultimately involves judicial decisions or interferences by thePatent Office. These court decisions act like a forced judgment on thequestion of priority. "Closure" of the controversy (to use the socialconstructivist's term) is not brought about by negotiation among theengineers involved, but rather by external, compulsory forces. Thesecourt judgments, which historians cannot overrule and which funda-mentally determine future histories, sometimes differ from those basedon detailed historical analysis. Historians therefore treat historicalassessments of inventions as a sphere separate from legal decisionsabout patents and avoid entering into the latter realm.2 Second, andmore important, historians of technology have usually consideredinvention as a long-term, social process, which includes not only thecreative activity of an inventor but also historically accumulated tradi-tions in which the work of many people is merged.3The priority disputeis itself interpreted as evidence for regarding the invention as somethingsocially conditioned. The question, for example, of who first inventedwireless telegraphy is hardly meaningful from such a perspective,because "wirelesstelegraphy" itself did not burst into being as a result ofa single genius's efforts, but was gradually shaped as several differenttechnological traditions converged.Recent historical studies on the origin of radio reflect such a shift ofemphases in the interpretation of technological inventions. In a highlyinfluential monograph, Syntonyand Spark:The Originsof Radio, HughG.J. Aitken argues that wireless telegraphy cannot be said to have been

and Michael I. Pupin," Technologyand Culture11 (1970): 36-57. Hounshell contrasts theamateurish style of invention (Alexander Graham Bell) with the professional style (ElishaGray), arguing for the former's advantage, whereas Brittain compares the organizedscientific research of Campbell with an independent inventor, Pupin. Post examines howthe "notorious Page patent" on the induction coil was constructed in the name of"scientific chauvinism" and exploited by the corporate interest.

2Compare Brittain (n. 1 above) with Joseph Gray Jackson, "Patent InterferenceProceedings and Priority of Invention," Technologyand Culture11 (1970): 598-600. Seealso Thomas Hughes's analysisof Lucien GaulardandJohn D. Gibbs's (who were defeatedby S. Z. de Ferranti in litigation) pioneering workson alternating current transformers;inThomas P.Hughes, NetworksofPower:Electrificationin WesternSociety,1880-1930 (Baltimore,1983), pp. 86-96.3LynnWhite, jr., "The Act of Invention: Causes, Contexts, Continuities, and Conse-quences," Technologyand Culture3 (1962): 486-500; Maurice Daumas, introduction to AHistory of Technologyand Invention (New York, 1979), 3:1-15; Hugh G.J. Aitken, TheContinuousWave:Technologyand AmericanRadio, 1900-1932 (Princeton, N.J., 1985), pp.14 ff.; George Basalla, TheEvolutionof Technology(Cambridge, 1988); John Law, "Theoryand Narrative in the History of Technology: Response," Technologyand Culture32 (1991):377-84.


4/34

TheOriginsof WirelessTelegraphyRevisited 719invented by Guglielmo Marconi (1874-1937). He argues instead thatWilliam Crookes had conceived of Hertzian wave telegraphy in 1892 andthat Oliver Lodge (1851-1940) demonstrated this before the BritishAssociation at its annual meeting in Oxford in 1894, one or two yearsbefore Marconi. In a critical passage, Aitken remarks, "Did Lodge in1894 suggest in public that his equipment could be used for signalling?Did his lecture refer to the application of Hertzian waves to telegraphy?Did he demonstrate transmission and reception of Morse Code? Theanswer would seem to be affirmative in each case. In this sense Lodgemust be recognized as the inventor of radio telegraphy."4This interpre-tation is quite novel and revisionist, since, before Aitken, Marconi hadusually been regarded as the first to invent wireless telegraphy.5In this article, I shall take up the priority dispute between Marconiand Lodge over the invention of wireless telegraphy. My analysis willshow that any claim for Lodge's priority is incorrect. But my mainpurpose is not to argue instead for Marconi's priority. It is rather todeconstruct the Lodge versus Marconi debate to reveal how two totallydifferent discourses (as noted in this article's epigraph from SilvanusThompson) first came into being and how these were then reinforcedby the different interests involved. After beginning with Aitken's evi-dence, I then turn to what was later claimed as Lodge's demonstration

4Hugh G.J. Aitken, Syntonyand Spark:The Originsof Radio (New York, 1976; 2d ed.Princeton, N.J., 1985), p. 123. One reviewer of the second edition of Syntonyand Sparknoticed this point; see A. N. Stranges in AmericanHistoricalReview91 (1986): 1166-67.5For claims supportive of Marconi's priority, see Charles Sfisskind, "Popov and theBeginning of Radiotelegraphy," Poceedingsof the Instituteof Radio Engineers50 (1962):2036-47, "The Early History of Electronics. III. Prehistory of Radiotelegraphy," FEEESpectrum6 (April 1969): 69-74, and "The EarlyHistory of Electronics. IV.FirstRadioteleg-raphy Experiments," FEEESpectrum6 (August 1969): 66-70. Aitken's claim for Lodge'sprioritywas not unprecedented. W.P.Jolly,who has written biographies of both Lodge andMarconi, admitted Lodge's wireless telegraphy at the BritishAssociation meeting in 1894.Compare W.P.Jolly,Marconi(London, 1972), pp. 41-42, with his SirOliverLodge(London,1974), p. 97. AfterAitken, however,Lodge's prioritywaswidely accepted. A recent biographyof Lodge emphasizes Lodge's "radio transmission" in 1894, based on Aitken's account andLodge's own; see Peter Rowlands, OliverLodgeand theLiverpoolPhysicalSociety(Liverpool,1990), pp. 115-23. Rowland F. Pocock, TheEarlyBritishRadioIndustry(Manchester, 1988),though admitting Marconi'soriginality,mentions Lodge's radio transmission in the Oxfordlecture in 1894, on p. 82. G. A. Isted, a former assistant to Marconi, has lately written thatLodge's demonstration at the BritishAssociation in Oxford "isthe earliestrecorded instanceof the transmission and reception of a signal by Hertzian waves and it is clearly of greathistorical importance." See G. A. Isted, "Guglielmo Marconiand the History of Radio: PartI," GeneralElectricCompanyReview7, no. 1 (1991): 45-56 (esp. on 46). Aitken's argument isalso picked up by Basalla (n. 3 above), p. 99. I should mention here that my criticism ofAitken is restrictedto the origin of wirelesstelegraphywith reference to Lodge and Marconi.My work is much indebted to Aitken's valuable analysis on the interaction of scientific,technological, and economic factors in the early stage of wireless telegraphy.


5/34

720 SungookHongof wireless telegraphy in 1894. It will be shown that this had nothing todo with telegraphy, nor with alphabetic signals, nor with dots anddashes. I then turn to the impact of Marconi and his British patent onthe British Maxwellian physicists-in particular Lodge, Thompson(1851-1916), George F. FitzGerald (1851-1901), and John AmbroseFleming (1849-1945).6 The transformation from Hertzian laboratoryapparatus into commercial wireless telegraphy was in fact accomplishedby Marconi, an Italian "practician." A certain disharmony betweentheory and practice became apparent. Moreover, Marconi's patentappeared so strong that it threatened to monopolize Hertzian wavesandthe British national interest. Under these circumstances, the image ofLodge as the inventor of wireless telegraphy was deliberately con-structed by his friends and by Lodge himself.This study clarifies not only the origin of wireless telegraphy withspecial reference to Marconi and Lodge but also the interactionbetween theory and practice in early radio history. It shows that twodifferent discourses on the theory and practice in early wirelesstelegraphy-discourses which either emphasized the influence of sci-ence on technology or denied any relationship between them-wereconstructed by different groups of participants.7My study also illustratesthe way in which the historical "facts"are at times constructed, as wellas the way in which these facts are analyzed by carefully cross-checkingthe sources. My ultimate hope is that this article will contribute torehabilitating the priority dispute as an object of historical research.8

FlemingsMarconiMemorialLecturein 1937Aitken has critically examined various sources concerning the Lodgeversus Marconi priority issue. Besides Lodge's own recollections, Aitkenbases his conclusions on two other sources. The first is a short article in6Forthe lives and works of the British Maxwellian physicists, see Jed Z. Buchwald, FromMaxwel toMicrophysics(Chicago, 1985); and BruceJ. Hunt, TheMaxwelians (Ithaca, N.Y.,1991).7Forthe relation between science and technology in early wireless telegraphy, see the

analysis of Hugh G.J. Aitken, "Science, Technology and Economics: The Invention ofRadio as a Case Study,"in TheDynamicsof Scienceand Technology,ed. W. Krohn, Edwin T.Layton, Jr., and Peter Weingart (Dordrecht, 1978), pp. 89-111. I have examined thetheory and practice issue in my forthcoming paper "FromHertz to Marconi'sTelegraphy:The Laboratory and the Field in EarlyWireless Experiments, 1888-1896."8Patentrecords and patent interferences as sources for historical research have beenpointed out by N. Reingold, "U.S. Patent Office Records as Sources for the History ofInvention and Technological Property," Technologyand Culture1 (1959/60): 156-67; andSeymour L. Chapin, "Patent Interferences and the History of Technology: A High-flyingExample," Technologyand Culture12 (1971): 414-46. See also Hounshell (n. 1 above); Post(n. 1 above); and Brittain (n. 1 above).


6/34

TheOrigins of WirelessTelegraphyRevisited 721the Electricianof 1897, which stated that "both at Oxford [in August1894] and at the Royal Institution [in June 1894], Dr. Lodge describedand exhibited publicly in operation a combination of sending andreceiving apparatus constituting a system of telegraphy substantially thesame as that now claimed in the patent we have referred to [Marconi'spatent no. 12,039 of 1896]."9 Aitken's second source is Fleming'sMarconi memorial lecture in 1937. Fleming said that Marconi was "notthe firstperson to transmit alphabetic signals by electromagnetic waves."He instead admitted Lodge's priority:

[Lodge] was able to transmit a dot or a dash signal and by suitablecombinations to send any letter of the alphabet on the Morse codeand consequently intelligible messages. He had also on his table aMorse inker (so he tells me), and could have used it with a sensitiverelay to print down the signals, but as he wished the audience to seethe actual signals he preferred to use the mirror galvanometer. It is,therefore, unquestionable that on the occasion of his Oxfordlecture in September [sic], 1894, Lodge exhibited electric wavetelegraphy over a short distance.'?

Since the testimony was given by Fleming it seems truly conclusive.Before Marconi's arrival in England in 1896, Fleming and Lodge hadbeen close friends, having studied together in their youth at EdwardFrankland's laboratory in South Kensington. Their relationship deterio-rated rapidly, however, after Fleming became scientific advisor of theMarconi Company (at that time Wireless Telegraph and Signal Com-pany) in 1899. In all the years afterward, right up until 1937, Fleminghad never admitted Lodge's priority, reiterating that "here [at theOxford meeting] again no mention of the application of these waves totelegraphy was made."" Only after Marconi's death, it seems, didFleming decide to tell the truth. Aitken comments that "Fleming'smemory also was capable of improvement with the passage of time, orperhaps as commercial and scientific rivalries receded into the past."12

9"Dr. Oliver Lodge's Apparatus for Wireless Telegraphy,"Electrician39 (1897): 686-87.Also quoted in Aitken, Syntonyand Spark(n. 4 above), p. 122.'?John Ambrose Fleming, "Guglielmo Marconi and the Development of Radio-Communication," Journal of theSocietyof Arts86 (1937): 42-63 (quoted on 46); cited inAitken, Syntonyand Spark,p. 123. Aitken also recognized (on p. 174, n. 70) that the phraseof "it is, therefore, unquestionable" is changed to read "it is, therefore, questionable" inDegna Marconi, MyFatherMarconi,2d ed. (Ottawa, 1982), p. 21. Fleming slipped the date.The British Association annual meeting was held at Oxford in August 1894, and Lodge'sexperiments were done on August 14."JohnAmbrose Fleming, ThePrinciplesofElectricWaveTelegraphy(London, 1906), p. 424;Aitken, Syntonyand Spark,p. 120.'"Fleming, "Guglielmo Marconi" (n. 10 above), p. 42; Aitken, Syntonyand Spark,p. 122.


7/34

722 SungookHongBut one thing should be made clear. Fleming was not present at theOxford British Association meeting in August 1894, the most crucialevent in the discussion. Fleming's source was not his own memory, butLodge's remark. That is clearly revealed by three letters betweenFleming and Lodge in 1937. Before his lecture in November 1937,Fleming wrote to Lodge:

I have been asked by the Council of the Royal Society of Arts to givenext November 10th a Memorial Lecture on the "Work of Mar-coni." ... One of the facts I am anxious to learn about is whetherin your lecture to the BritishAssociationat OxfordMeetingin 1894 youused a telegraphic relay in series with your coherer to print onMorse Inker tape dot and dash signals? In his little book on"Wireless" Dr. Eccles gives on page 54 a diagram of the apparatushe says you employed at Oxford in 1894 [see fig. 1].... I waspresent inJune 1894 at your famous lecture at the Royal Institutionon "The Work of Hertz" and remember well your experiments withyour coherer. But to the best of my recollection there was no directreference to "telegraphy" in that lecture. I was not present at theB.A. meeting at Oxford, but... it is very important to know fromyou whether at Oxford in 1894 you exhibited a Hertz oscillatorconnected with coherer and used a telegraphic relay in connectionwith it and morse inker and showed the transmission and printingof dots and dashsignals over any short distance.13

Lodge replied that at Oxford he had actually used telegraphicinstruments and transmitted alphabetic signals, that is, dots and dashes:You are perfectly right that in 1894 at the Royal Institution I didnot refer to telegraphy. But, stimulated by Muirhead, who hadclose connection with telegraphy and cables, I did at Oxforddemonstrate actual telegraphy. I had a Morse instrument there, butit was not convenient for the large audience in the Museum theatre,and therefore I used as receiver a Thomson marine signallingdevice supplied by Muirhead's firm for that purpose, though I hada Morse instrument on the table which I could have used instead.But the deflections of the spot of light were plainly visible to theaudience, and gave quick and prolonged response correspondingto the dots and dashes according to the manipulation of the key atthe distant end.'4

3JohnAmbrose Fleming to Oliver Lodge, August 24, 1937, Lodge Collection, UniversityCollege London (hereafter UCL) (emphasis in original). W.H. Eccles's book is titledWireless(London, 1933).'4Lodgeto Fleming, August 26, 1937 (copy), Lodge Collection, UCL.


8/34

TheOriginsof WirelessTelegraphyRevisited

FIG. 1.-W. H. Eccles'sdiagram of Oliver Lodge's receiver in 1894. (W.H. Eccles, Wireless[London, 1933], p. 54.)

Fleming's reply to Lodge, which foretold the content of his lecture,shows that he entirely accepted Lodge's claims: "Whatyou tell me aboutyour Oxford lecture in 1894 is very valuable and important. It is quiteclear that in 1894 you could send and receive alphabeticsignalsin MorseCode by Electric Waves and did send them 180 feet or so. Marconi's ideathat he was the first to do that is invalid.... Marconi was alwaysdetermined to claim everything for himself. His conduct to me aboutthe first transatlantic transmission was very ungenerous.... However,these things get known in time and justice is done."'5As we can see in this last letter, Fleming had been hurt by Marconi'sattitude toward his employees. His resignation as scientific advisor to theMarconi Company in 1931 and Marconi's death in 1937 might haveinfluenced Fleming to be more sympathetic to Lodge. He might havefelt as if "things get known in time and justice is done." But this couldnot have improved his memory of something he had never experienced.It was only Lodge who informed Fleming about the Oxford meeting.Therefore, Fleming's lecture in 1937 cannot be regarded as conclusive.For later analysis, I divide Lodge's claim into two parts. First, Lodgeactually sent telegraphic signals, that is, dots and dashes, during theOxford meeting of the British Association in August 1894. Second,Lodge had a Morse instrument there, but, owing to the size of the

15Flemingto Lodge, August 29, 1937, Lodge Collection, UCL (emphasis in original).

723


9/34

724 SungookHongaudience, he used a mirror galvanometer to show the signals. Leavingaside Aitken's firstevidence (a short article in the Electrician)until a latersection of this article on Marconi's patent, I shall examine Lodge's RoyalInstitution and BritishAssociation lectures in 1894. Wewill see that bothassertions are incorrect.

LodgesExperimentswith Hertzian WavesOliver Lodge, an ambitious Maxwellian and professor of physics atUniversity College, Liverpool, worked on the various characteristics ofHertzian waves between 1888 and 1894. The links between optics andelectromagnetism particularly attracted him. The subject was faithfullyMaxwellian, as it had a root in Maxwell's doctrine that light and elec-tromagnetic waves were the same. It was also truly Lodgian "imperialscience," as it led electrical science to the conquest of other fields-in thiscase, optics and physiology.The subject came to be divided into two parts:first, the physical investigation of the quasi-optical property of electro-magnetic waves-that is, reflection, refraction, and polarization of theelectromagnetic wavesin air, in other media, and in some cases along thewires; second, the physiological investigation of the mechanism of theperception of light (color, intensity, and so on) by human eyes.'6With these experiments, Lodge made two important advances. First,he constructed a radiator that generated waves with wavelengths ofseveral inches. Hertz had once used the wavelength of 66 centimeters,but that was still too long for most optical experiments. Because of thedifficulty in decreasing the wavelength with Hertz's dipole radiator,Lodge turned to a spherical radiator. In 1890, Lodge used three12-centimeter balls and obtained 17-centimeter waves, "the shortest

yet dealt with."'7Lodge then went further along this line of develop-ment and devised two more spherical radiators that he exhibited in hisFridayEvening Lecture on the "Workof Hertz" at the Royal Institutionin June 1894.Lodge's second line of research was on detectors. The Hertzian wavewas at first detected by a small spark-gap resonator. But this spark-gap

'6ForLodge's early conceptions of electromagnetic waves, seeJed Z. Buchwald, "WaveGuides and Radiators in Maxwellian Electrodynamics," published as app. 1 to his TheCreationofScientificEffects:HeinrichHertzand ElectricWaves(Chicago, 1994). See also Hunt,The Maxwellians(n. 6 above), pp. 24-47. Lodge's research after 1888 is best described inAitken, Syntonyand Spark(n. 4 above), pp. 80-102. Lodge's program with Hertzian waves,as well as his concept of "imperial science," was promulgated in Oliver Lodge, ModemViewsofElectricity(London, 1889), pp. 303-7. For the early quasi-optical experiments withHertzian waves, see John F. Ramsay, "MicrowaveAntenna and Waveguide Techniquebefore 1900, " Proceedingsof theIRE46 (1958): 405-15.'7OliverLodge, "Electric Radiation from Conducting Spheres, an Electric Eye, and aSuggestion regarding Vision," Nature41 (1890): 462-63.


10/34

TheOrigins of WirelessTelegraphyRevisited 725resonator was not suitable for Lodge's physiological research. Forexample, nothing in the spark-gap detector corresponded to differentcolor perceptions in human eyes. Lodge, therefore, concentrated on theconstruction of an "electric eye." In 1890, his assistant Edward Robinsonconstructed a "gradated receiver," and Lodge tried "a series of longcylinders" of various diameters. The principle of both detectors was tomake each of them respond to a specific radiation, forming "an electriceye with a definite range of colour sensation." In 1891 Lodge exhibitedan electric eye of Robinson's type at the Physical Society, London, whichhad "strips of tin foil of different lengths attached to a glass plate, andspark gaps at each end which separate them from other pieces of foil."'8Yet, it was not the electric-eye resonator that was associated with thename of Lodge. Rather, it was the coherer. To understand Lodge'scoherer, we need to examine its prehistory briefly. In 1890, whileexperimenting on lightning rods, Lodge found that two metallicconductors separated by a very tiny air gap were fused when theoscillatory discharge passed through them. At that time, Lodge acceptedDavid Hughes's explanation that this was a thermoelectric phenomenonand dropped the subject. In 1890, Edouard Branly in France found thatfine copper filings, capsuled into a glass tube, were conducting onlyfeebly under ordinary conditions but that their conductivity wasabruptly increased when a sparkwasgenerated nearby. Branly'stube wasintroduced in Britain when the Electricianfully translated his articleswith figures, but they were apparently overlooked at that time. The tubewas noticed later, however, by Dawson Turner, who demonstrated thedecrease of the resistance of copper filings at the British Associationmeeting in Edinburgh in 1892. Turner's demonstration was seen byW.B. Croft, who addressed a short experiment on the same phenom-enon before the Physical Society, London, in October 1893. There,George M. Minchin, one of those interested in Hertzian waves, noticedthe similaritybetween Croft's (actually Branly's) tube and his solar cell'sresponse to Hertzian waves. Minchin immediately read a paper on thesubject at the Physical Society. While hearing Minchin's paper, Lodgenoticed that Branly's and Minchin's discovery was very similar to hisprevious research on the action of lightning discharge to a very tinymetallic gap. Lodge reasoned that electromagnetic radiation made themetallic molecules both in the filings and in the microscopic air gapactually cohere with one another. Based on this similarity,Lodge soondevised a single-point contact "coherer," in which a spring wire formeda slight contact with an aluminum plate, and soon found that its

"Ibid.; and Oliver Lodge, "Some Experiments with Leyden Jars" (abstract), Nature 43(1891): 238-39.


11/34

726 SungookHongsensitivity as a detector was not only much better than ordinaryspark-gapresonators but also better than Branly'sfiling tube.19Lodge therefore had two new detectors, his coherer and Branly'stube. Initially,Lodge called only his single-point detector a coherer, butthe name "coherer" soon came to designate both types. Both Lodge'scoherer and Branly's tube were connected in series to a battery and agalvanometer. Under this condition, they act like an on-off switch:before a Hertzian wave strikes them, their resistances are very high, asif the switch were off, but when a Hertzian wave strikes them, theirresistances fall off, as if the switch were turned on. This action makes thecurrent flow from a battery, and the current can be detected by agalvanometer. The two detectors, however, differed in sensitivity. AtLiverpool on April 17, 1894, Lodge found that the filing tube coulddetect radiation emitted from 40 yards away. However, "a sender inZoology Theatre affected the coherer in PhysicsTheatre perceptibly,"adistance of perhaps 70 yards.20Though more sensitive, Lodge's cohererwas less stable than the filing tube. In addition, Branly's tube had acrude metrical character: its decrease in resistance seemed roughlyproportional to the intensity of the Hertzian waves. This resembled ahuman eye's perception of the light of different intensity. For physi-ological experiments, therefore, Branly's tube was more suitable thanLodge's single-point contact coherer.On January 1, 1894, Hertz died at the age of 36, and Lodge delivereda Hertz Memorial Lecture at the Royal Institution Friday EveningLecture on June 1. Here Lodge spoke on the life and work of Hertz,exhibited Hertz's and his own radiators and detectors, and thenperformed several experiments.21The demonstrations were divided intoa physical and a physiological part. In the first part, he demonstratedreflection, refraction, and polarization of the Hertzian waves. For thispurpose, Lodge used his spherical radiator enclosed in a metallic box

'gForLodge's experiments on the air gap of lightning conductors, see Oliver Lodge, "OnLightning-Guardsfor Telegraphic Purposes and on the Protection of Cables from Light-ning,"Journal of theInstitutionofElectricalEngineers19 (1890): 346-79, on 352-53. For thestory of Branly'stube in Britain, see Oliver Lodge, "The History of the Coherer Principle,"Electrician40 (1897): 87-91. Refer also to E. Branly'spapers under the title "VariationsofConductivityunder ElectricalInfluence," Electrician27 (1891): 221-22, 448-49. Also usefulis VivianJ. Phillips, EarlyRadioWaveDetectors(London, 1980), pp. 18-37.20Rowlands(n. 5 above), pp. 116-17.2"Thelecture, "The Work of Hertz," was published in Nature, the Electrician(withillustrations), and later in the Prceedings of theRoyalInstitution.The reference here is toOliver Lodge, "The Work of Hertz," Nature 50 (1894): 133-39. The lecture, withappendixes, was published in 1894 as a book, The Workof Hertzand Someof His Successors(London, 1894). From the third edition (1900), its title was changed to SignallingthroughSpacewithoutWires.


12/34

TheOrigins of WirelessTelegraphyRevisiteda 6" sphericalradiator in anmetallic box

FIG.2.-Oliver Lodge's quasi-optical experiment with Hertzian waves at the RoyalInstitution in June 1894. A spherical radiator is in a metallic box, and a Branly tube is ina copper hat. Notice the mirror galvanometer. (Electrician33 [1894]: 205.)

and a Branly tube in a copper hat as a detector, and a mirror galvanom-eter as a signal indicator (fig. 2). In the second part, he explained thefunction of human eyes by means of the analogy of the coherer. "Whenlight falls upon the retina,"Lodge said, "these gaps become more or lessconducting, and the nerves are stimulated."22Lodge also tried an outdoorexperiment, in which the receiver was in the theater and the transmitterwas in the library of the Royal Institution, separated across 40 yards bythree rooms and stairs. I shall return to this outdoor experiment afterexamining Lodge's other demonstrations.The coherer, in particular the Branly tube, had a character that wasabsent in the spark-gap resonator. After detecting electromagneticwaves, the coherer needed to be mechanically vibrated or "tapped" tomake it ready for the next wave trains. This feature raised a questionwith relation to physiological concerns. To what, in human eyes, did thistapping correspond? Lodge assumed that, in the eye, "the tapping backis done automatically by the tissues, so that it is always ready for a newimpression." How to demonstrate this automatic tapping in humaneyes? Lodge prepared an electric bell, which was mounted on the sameboard as the filing tube. By constantly vibrating itself, and thus byconstantly shaking the table and the coherer on it, the bell alwaysmadethe coherer ready to detect new waves.23Was Lodge's lecture successful? It is true that the published abstractsin Nature and the Electricianwere read worldwide. Nevertheless, the

"Lodge, "Work of Hertz," p. 137.2Ibid. It is noteworthy that the bell was neither connected to the coherer circuit nortapped the coherer directly.

727


13/34

728 SungookHongdemonstrations were rather unsuccessful. The Electriciannoted that "theexperiments were performed under very unfavourable conditions."24Moreover, the "lack of enthusiasm" in Lodge's lecture was contrastedwith the success of Nikola Tesla's lecture a year earlier, where "the weirdwaving of glowing tubes in the suitably darkened room" impressedeveryone. What Lodge lacked was a "theatrical effect"or "scenic setting."Neither the sound of the spark nor the "moderate galvanometer"connected to the coherer was theatrical. In particular, the galvanometerwasvery tricky.It proved to be a "verylivelykind of galvanometer"for thecoherer circuit. The swing of the needle was not stable, not even whenthere were no waves. For success subsequently, the Electriciansuggestedusing a more effective galvanometer such as a deadbeat galvanometer.No detailed descriptions about the galvanometerused by Lodge survive.From the abstract and the figure, we see that Lodge used a mirror galva-nometer.25From the comment in the Electrician,we understand that it wasnot of a deadbeat type. From other pieces of evidence, we know that Lodgehad not paidmuch attention to the galvanometer,in contrastto the situationseveralyears earlier. Before the coherer, for example, FitzGerald,Lodge'sclosest friend and professor of natural and experimental philosophy atTrinityCollege, Dublin, had constructed an extremely sensitivegalvanom-eter to show to an audience the detection of waves.This instrument wouldhave needed to detect the disturbance of electric equilibriumcaused by atinyspark.2The coherer, an on-off switch,made such a sensitivegalvanom-eter unnecessary,because the galvanometer had to detect only a relativelylargecurrent from a battery,triggeredbythe action of the coherer.As Lodgenoted, "a rough galvanometer"was therefore sufficient27But why was the galvanometer troublesome at the crucial moment?Lodge suspected that the source of the trouble was the electric bell usedfor the automatic tapping. There is a "jerkcurrent" in the electric bell,which would certainly influence the adjacent coherer electrically. Thejerky current "produces one effect, and a mechanical vibration ...produces an opposite effect; hence the spot of light can hardly keepstill." He knew the way to eliminate this: a "clockwork"that did not usean electric current "might do better."28As we shall see, Lodge actuallyemployed the clockwork in his Oxford lecture two months later.

4"HertzianWavesat the Royal Institution" (lead article), Electrician33 (1894): 156-57.5Lodgementioned "the spot of light" in a mirror galvanometer. See Lodge, "Work ofHertz," p. 137.6GeorgeF. FitzGerald, "Electro-Magnetic Radiation" (Friday Evening Lecture at theRoyal Institution on March 21, 1890), Nature42 (1890): 172-75."See also Lodge's exhibition of the portable detector of his assistant's design at theRoyal Society soiree a few days after his FridayLecture, in "The Royal Society Conversazi-one," Nature50 (1894): 182-83.

28Lodge,"Workof Hertz" (n. 21 above), p. 137.


14/34

TheOrigins of WirelessTelegraphyRevisited 729Now recall Lodge's statement concerning the "Muirhead connection"in his letter to Fleming. Here Lodge emphasized that in his Oxforddemonstration he used a deadbeat Thomson (Kelvin) marine galvanom-eter he had borrowed from Muirhead's firm. In 1900 Lodge stated that"Dr. Alexander Muirhead foresaw the telegraphic importance of thismethod of signalling immediately after hearing the author's lecture onJune 1st, 1894, and arranged a siphon recorder for the purpose."2 InLodge's much-quoted letter to one of his friends in 1914, he emphasizedthat "it was at the first of these lectures [RoyalInstitution FridayLecture]that my friend Alexander Muirhead conceived the telegraphic applica-tions which ultimately led to the foundation of the Lodge-MuirheadSyndicate."30Elsewhere, Lodge recalled that the galvanometer at Oxford"responded to signals sharply,in a dead-beat manner, without confusingoscillations."31This Muirhead connection makes Lodge's telegraphic trialat Oxford, performed only two months after his obviouslynontelegraphicexperiment at the Royal Institution, both feasible and timely.Some parts of this Muirhead connection are undoubtedly true.Muirhead constructed a delicate siphon recorder for a wireless detectorduring the late 1890s and early 1900s; Lodge and Muirhead, who beganto file for patents on wireless telegraphy in 1897, formed the Lodge-Muirhead Syndicate in 1901. Nevertheless, the central point in theMuirhead connection (that Muirhead lent Lodge a deadbeat Thomsonmarine galvanometer after/becausehe was inspired by Lodge's Junelecture) is very doubtful. According to the recollection of Muirhead'swife, it was Lodge's Oxford lecture, not the Royal Institution lecture,that inspired Muirhead to think about wireless telegraphy.3 One ofLodge's biographers doubts that he actually used a Thomson marinedeadbeat galvanometer borrowed from Muirhead at Oxford.33But that

"Lodge, SignallingthroughSpacewithout Wires(n. 21 above), p. 45. Refer also to OliverLodge, "Alexander Muirhead" (obituary), Proceedingsof the Royal Society100, pt. A(1921-22): viii-ix.S3OliverLodge toJ. Arthur Hill, December 11, 1914, inJ. Arthur Hill, ed., Lettersfom SirOliverLodge(London, 1932), p. 47.3"OliverLodge, "Reminiscences of the Last British Association Meeting in Oxford,1894," Discovery7 (August 1926): 263-66 (quoted on 265-66). See also the samerecollection in Oliver Lodge, AdvancingScience(London, 1931), p. 164, and Past Years:AnAutobiography(New York, 1932), p. 231.32Muirheadwas excited after Lodge's Oxford lecture, and "the next day he went toLodge with the suggestion that messages could be sent by use of these waves to feedcables." See M. E. Muirhead, AlexanderMuirhead(Oxford, 1926), p. 39, quoted in Pocock(n. 5 above), p. 83."Rowlands (n. 5 above), p. 148, n. 30. Thomson's marine galvanometer was a verysensitive current-measuring device specially designed so that the swing of a ship could notchange the readings. In principle, it utilized rotation of a small magnet fixed in the middleof the coils by silk fiber. When magnetic fields were created around the coils by the action


15/34

730 SungookHongis, I think, highly plausible, not because Muirhead had been inspired byLodge'sJune lecture, but because Lodge had borrowed from Muirheadsuch a device at various times since the late 1880s.34In addition, as wehave seen, Lodge had an urgent reason to use a deadbeat galvanometer.He had experienced serious trouble in his "livelykind" galvanometer intheJune lecture, and the Electricianhad recommended the employmentof a deadbeat galvanometer for future success. These factors might bethe real motivations for Lodge's use of a Thomson marine galvanometerat Oxford, if it was actually used there.Let us return to Lodge's outdoor experiment at the Royal Institution.Why did Lodge perform this experiment? Evidently, it was not todetermine the maximum transmitting distance, nor to show the wave'spenetrability of walls. Its real purpose layin physiological concerns. Witha metrical Branly tube and an electric bell, Lodge wanted to show thatthe coherer could discern Hertzian waves of various intensities (ust asthe human eye could). The easiest wayto vary the intensity of waveswasto adjust the distance between transmitter and receiver. Lodge placed a6-inch sphere radiator in the library of the Royal Institution, which hadtwo advantages. First, owing to the theory of Horace Lamb and J.J.Thomson, it was easy to estimate the wavelength: with a 6-inch radiator,the wavelength was about 8 or 9 inches. Second, owing to FitzGerald'stheory, it was known that the energy of radiation at a distance, otherthings being equal, is inversely proportional to the fourth power of thewavelength. That is, the shorter the wavelength, the more the energy ofradiation, and thus the higher the possibility of being detected at adistance. The belief that short waves had more power to travel fartherthan long waves was strongly inscribed in Lodge's mind.35But even withthe short wave, Lodge estimated that "something more like half a mile

of current, the small magnet was forced to rotate, and this effect was magnified by thereflection of a ray of light from a small mirror fastened to the magnet. For a detaileddescription of the device, see George B. Prescott, Electricityand theElectricTelegraph(NewYork, 1888), pp. 154-57.'See, e.g. Lodge, ModernVewsofElectricity(n. 16 above), p. 300, where Lodge used theThomson marine galvanometer lent by Muirhead for his experiments on electricmomentum. Notice also that their business relation started around the same time with theconstruction of Lodge's lightning guard by the Muirhead Company. For this, see OliverLodge, LightningConductorsandLightningGuards(London, 1892), pp. 419-26. I thank IdoYavetzfor this reference.35HoraceLamb, "On Electrical Motion in a Spherical Conductor," PhilosophicalTrans-actions of the Royal Society174, pt. 2 (1883): 519-49; J.J. Thomson, "On ElectricalOscillations and the Effects Produced by the Motion of an Electrified Sphere," Proceedingsof the London MathematicalSociety15 (1883/84): 197-219. For FitzGerald's theory, seeGeorge F. FitzGerald, "On the Quantity of Energy Transferred to the Ether by a VariableCurrent," Transactionsof theRoyalDublin Society(1883), in TheScientificWritingsof the Late


16/34

TheOrigins of WirelessTelegraphyRevisited 731was nearer the limit of sensitiveness," even though he appended that"this is a rash statement not at present verified."36What was the result of this first outdoor experiment? Was it success-ful? Lodge and his friends later repeated that the experiment was a greatsuccess. The answerwas, however, both yes and no: no, because he failedto detect the wave with a metrical filing tube; yes, because he detectedit with his sensitive coherer. Lodge's manuscript confirms this: "Thespherical radiator... though it could excite the filings tube ... when 60yards away in the open air, yet could not excite it perceptibly whenscreened off by so many walls and metal surfaces as exist between theLibrary and Theatre of the Royal Institution. It could, however, stilleasily excite the coherer, which is immensely more sensitive, and alsomore troublesome and occasionally capricious than is a tube of ironfilings."37With this experiment he was thus unable to show the metricalresponse of the Branly filing tube to radiations of various intensities.Two months later, on August 14, 1894, at the joint session of thePhysics and Physiology sections of the British Association, Lodge deliv-ered two lectures and demonstrations on Hertzian waves at the theaterin the museum of Oxford University. The first lecture was on "Experi-ments Illustrating Clerk Maxwell's Theory of Light"; the second was on"An Electrical Theory of Vision." In a sense, he split his previous FridayLecture into two. In the first lecture, Lodge used a spherical radiatorand a copper hat to concentrate the radiation. As before, Branly'stubeand Lodge's coherer were used as detectors, with most experimentsdone with Branly'sdevice. Refractions and reflections of Hertzian waveswere demonstrated with lenses, gold papers, the human body, paraffinprisms, and a slab of wood. Polarization was shown with a copper wirepolarizer; splitting of the polarized rayinto the two elliptically polarizedrays was also demonstrated. These experiments were "very beautifully,very carefully and very convincingly demonstrated," and "the audience... repeatedly showed its warm appreciation." Lodge's employment of adeadbeat galvanometer might have been a reason for the success.3

GeorgeFrancisFitzGerald,ed. Joseph Lamor (London, 1902), pp. 122-26. For Lodge, seeLodge, AdvancingScience(n. 31 above), p. 165.5Lodge, "Work of Hertz" (n. 21 above), pp. 135-37.70OliverLodge, "Notes on the History of the Coherer Method of Detecting HertzianWaves and other Similar Matters"(n.d.), Lodge Collection, UCL. In the published article,a similar paragraph read, "Almost any filing tube could detect signals from a distance of60 yards,with a mere six-inch sphere as emitter and without the slightest trouble, but thesingle-point coherer was usually much more sensitive than any filing tube." See Lodge,"History of the Coherer Principle" (n. 19 above), p. 90.S8Sincethe lectures were not published, I relyon the brief reports of the meetings of theBritish Association published in Nature,Electrician,Engineering,and London Times,all of


17/34

732 SungookHongThese were really "the prologue" of Lodge's second lecture anddemonstrations. In this lecture, Lodge proposed his hypothesis concern-ing the theory of vision that the coherer circuit "may be taken as ananalogous, and may, ex hypothesi,be an enlarged model of the mecha-nism of vision." According to this hypothesis, "the retinal elementsconstitute an imperfect conductor, and ... the light waves would causea sudden diminution in the resistance of the elements."Yet, once struck

by the wave, the coherer "has a tendency to persist in its lessenedresistance" and therefore requires tapping "tojerk the coherer contactback to its normal state of badness." For this tapping, he used "a sort ofclockwork apparatus which automatically produces the tap every tenthof a second." With this device, Lodge showed that "for a continuousradiation the coherer showed continuous indications, which died awaywhen the radiation ceased."39Where was the transmitter in the physiological experiments? Theissue has never been examined critically. Four years later, in 1898,Thompson-Lodge's close friend and professor of applied physics andelectrical engineering of the Finsbury Technical College-commentedthat the radiator was in the Clarendon Laboratory, the building adjacentto the museum, at a distance of 200 yards.4 I believe that Thompson'sstatement may be erroneous, because Lodge, in his various recollec-tions, never mentioned the Clarendon Laboratory. He would onlyremark that "in both cases, signalling was easily carried on from adistance through walls and other obstacles, an emitter being outsideand a galvanometer detector inside the room," or that "this [sending]apparatus was in another room."41Contrary to Lodge's and Thompson'sremarks, the four sources on which I have relied for my account saynothing about the outdoor trial at all. Considering this evidence, as wellas Lodge's previous trouble with the outdoor experiment at the RoyalInstitution, it may be said that the distance traversed by Hertzian wavesin the Oxford lecture was fairly modest.The lecture was followed by heated discussions by such physicists asLord Rayleigh, Henry E. Armstrong, and FitzGerald, and the physiolo-which sent their reporters to the British Association. See "Physicsat the BritishAssociation,"Nature50 (1894): 408; "The BritishAssociation at Oxford: Tuesday,August 14th,"Electrician33 (1894): 458-59; "The British Association, Section A: Electric Theory of Vision,"Engineering58 (1894): 382-83; "The BritishAssociation,"LondonTimes,August 15, 1894.9"The British Association at Oxford: Tuesday, August 14," p. 458; "The BritishAssociation, Section A: Electric Theory of Vision"; London 7imes,August 15, 1894.4Silvanus P.Thompson, "TelegraphyAcross Space" (lecture given at the Royal Societyof Arts on March 30, 1898), Journalof theSocietyofArts40 (1897/98): 453-60, esp. 458.4Lodge, "History of the Coherer Principle" (n. 19 above), p. 90, and Past Years(n. 31above), p. 231.


18/34

TheOriginsof WirelessTelegraphyRevisited 733gists Burdon Sanderson and EdwardA. Sharpey-Schffer, marking a greatsuccess. But that was all. There is not the slightest hint of telegraphicsignals, nor "dots and dashes." With his improved automatic tapper,Lodge showed the persistency of vision and mere sensation of light,which corresponded to the continuous and short indication of thegalvanometer. But that was far from dots and dashes for alphabeticsignals. From beginning to end, the lecture was entirely "Lodgian." Hispurpose was to investigate the relation between optics and electromag-netism, between light and electromagnetic waves, and between opticalreceptors and electromagnetic ones. After the lecture, despite Muir-head's and Rayleigh's suggestions, Lodge did not pursue this subjectfurther. He soon busied himself with ether experiments, X-rays, andpsychic researches.The preceding examination has shown that Lodge's first argument,namely, that he actually transmitted dots and dashes for alphabeticsignals in the Oxford meeting, is doubtful. Let us next examine Lodge'ssecond argument about "a Morse instrument," mentioned in his letterto Fleming. Fleming thought that this instrument must be a Morse inker.But it was not. Ironically,Aitken's first source reveals its nature. It listedfive instruments used in Lodge's Oxford demonstrations, and one ofthem is "Morseinstrumenttoshakethefilings"42(emphasis added). Lodge'sMorse instrument was nothing but a clockwork or an automatic tapperthat he used for tapping the coherer. To be sure, the Morse instrumentthat Lodge used for the clockwork was a telegraphic device, but he usedthis telegraphic device for nontelegraphic purposes, as confirmed byhimself in his description of the automatic tapper in the Oxfordmeeting: "The tapping back was at first performed by hand ... butautomatic tappers were very soon arranged; ... an electric bell was notfound very satisfactory,however, because of the disturbances caused bythe little spark at its contact breaker ... so a clockworktapper,consistingofa rotatingspokewheeldrivenbytheclockworkofa Morseinstrument,and givingto the filings tube or to a coherer a series of jerks occurring at regularintervals ... was also employed."43The "Morse instrument" was neithera Morse inker nor a substitute for a galvanometer. To understand howa clockwork was transformed into a Morse detector, we now examine theimpact of Marconi's wireless telegraphy on the British Maxwellians.

Marconi,Preece,theMaxwellians,and 'PracticeversusTheory"Since 1886, Lodge and his Maxwellian friends, Oliver Heaviside(1850-1925) in particular, had been involved in a bitter controversy-""Dr.Oliver Lodge's Apparatus for Wireless Telegraphy" (n. 9 above), p. 686.'Lodge, "History of the Coherer Principle," p. 90 (emphasis added).


19/34

734 SungookHongthe so-called Practice vs. Theory controversy-with William H. Preece(1834-1913), an eminent practical telegrapher of the Post Office. Theissues of the controversy involved the role of the self-induction of linesand its implication in long-distance telephony and lightning conduc-tors. Heaviside's counterintuitive, theoretical claim for the beneficialeffect of self-induction for long-distance telephony was severely rebukedby Preece, who based his argument on his practice and experience inthe field. The news that Hertz had discovered Maxwell'selectromagneticwaves was known to them in 1888, when Lodge was attempting togenerate and detect electromagnetic waves on wires with Leyden-jardischarge. Even though Hertz deprived Lodge of credit for the discoveryof electromagnetic waves, and even though the electromagnetic wavewas not directly related to the controversies, Hertz's discovery certainlyhad a favorable impact for the Maxwellians, allowing them to defeatPreece. The most important part of Maxwell'stheory was proved, and itwas followed by Sir William Thomson's warm recognition of Heaviside'smathematical work in 1889, marking the victory of the theoretical menover practicians. Hertz's discovery of Maxwell's electromagnetic waveswas timely and was good for theoreticians.44In 1896, Marconi came to England with his "secret box" (see fig. 3).In July 1896, Preece, then chief engineer of the Post Office, becameMarconi's first, and most potent, patron. As Preece had had interests ininduction telegraphy for several years, he might have realized a possi-bility of commercial wireless telegraphy in Marconi's demonstration.But in Marconi's apparatus Preece saw more than commercial possibil-ity; it was a good means of revenge against the theoretical camp of theMaxwellians. Like Preece himself, Marconi was "whatMr. Oliver Heavi-side calls a 'practician,' "who knew nothing about Maxwell's mathemati-cal theory and perhaps little about Hertz's physical experiments. ButMarconi had developed the Hertzian wave telegraphy, which Lodge hadfailed to do. To Preece, Marconi's success was a marvelous example ofthe superiority of practice over theory. The Hertzian wave that haddefeated Preece in 1888 now became his weapon.45

"For this controversy, see BruceJ. Hunt, " 'Practice vs. Theory': The British ElectricalDebate, 1888-1891," Isis 74 (1983): 341-55; D.W. Jordan, "The Adoption of Self-Induction by Telephony, 1886-1889," Annals of Science39 (1982): 433-61; Ido Yavetz,"Oliver Heaviside and the Significance of the British Electrical Debate," Annals of Science50 (1993): 135-73."For the description of Marconi as "practician,"see "Notes,"Electrician39 (1897): 207.Different opinions have existed about the relation between Preece and Marconi. Aitken,in Syntonyand Spark(n. 4 above), pp. 210-16, suggests that Preece's interest came from the"bureaucraticresponsibility"of Preece and the Post Office to oversee the development ofall forms of electric communication in Britain. Based on the manuscripts of the PostOffice, Pocock shows that Preece was rather cool toward the Marconi system'scommercial


20/34

TheOriginsof WirelessTelegraphyRevisited

FIc. 3.-Marconi in 1896 with his "secret box" closed. (Courtesy of the MarconiCompany Archives, Chelmsford.)

At the meeting of the British Association in Liverpool in September1896, Preece prepared two counterattacks. First, based on the observa-tions of various submarine cables, he attacked Heaviside's mathematicaltheory of distortionless cables and advocated his own empirical law.4Then, in his discussion of J. Chunder Bose's paper, Preece stated that"an Italian had come with a box giving a quite new system of spacetelegraphy," advertising Marconi's splendid success in transmittingacross 1/4 miles on SalisburyPlain.47Preece's announcement astonishedmost Maxwellians, as shown in the following quote from a letter frompossibility and then argues that Preece in fact followed the policy of the Post Office to newinventions-"neither to accept the invention, nor to invest substantial sums" withoutentirely ignoring it altogether. See Pocock (n. 5 above), pp. 114-17. But Pocock seems tofeel the difficulty in explaining why Preece ardently advertised Marconi in the BritishAssociation and in his public lectures. The difficulty disappears if the personal factors arecounted in. Among secondary materials, Paul Nahin, OliverHeaviside:Sagein Solitude(NewYork, 1988), p. 281, mentions this possibility.'William H. Preece, "On Disturbance in Submarine Cables,"Annual Reportof theBritishAssociationfor theAdvancementof Science(1896): 732 (title only), and "Electrical Distur-bances in Submarine Cables,"Electrician37 (1896): 689-91.47Lodge, Advancing Science(n. 31 above), p. 168. See also "Physics at the BritishAssociation," Nature 54 (1896): 567; "The BritishAssociation," LondonTimes,September23, 1896; "Notes," Electrician37 (1896): 685. Preece also mentioned Marconi's parabolicantenna in the transmitter and a relay and a Morse inker in the receiver.

735


21/34

736 SungookHongFitzGerald to Heaviside: "On the last day but one Preece surprised us allby saying that he had taken up an Italian adventurer who had done nomore than Lodge & others had done in observing Hertzian radiations ata distance. Manyof us were very indignant at this over-looking of Britishwork for an Italian manufacturer. Science 'made in Germany' we areaccustomed to but 'made in Italy' by an unknown firm was too bad."48According to the later recollection, Lodge did not get up to refutePreece, who was "far more ignorant than he ought to have been of whathad been already done," but "'retiredto [his] laboratory and rigged upan arrangement which I showed to Lord Kelvin and a few others, saying'This is what Preece was talking about.' "49In December 1896, Preece again publicized Marconi's feat in hispublic lecture at Toynbee Hall and promised there to spare no expensefor Marconi's research. This promise especially upset the Maxwellians,because they were then engaged in difficult negotiations with the Britishgovernment to secure financial support (?35,000) for the establishmentof the National Physical Laboratory (NPL). Lodge had initiated themovement in 1891 at the British Association's annual meeting. When itwas revived in 1895 by Douglas Galton, Lodge was appointed assecretary of the BritishAssociation Committee on the Establishment ofan NPL. FitzGerald had also emphasized the role of science in industrialdevelopment.5 The Maxwellians were at first nervous about Preece, whocontinuously publicized Marconi as the "inventor of wireless telegra-phy,"and who, as an influential person at the Post Office, ignored therole of scientific research. Yet, their attitude to Marconi was not veryhostile initially. In March 1897, in a letter to Thompson, Lodgeexpressed his hope that "M[arconi] is improving things all around &going to bring it in commercially." It was certainly because Lodgethought that "there will be many improvements in details wanted beforethat can be done."5' But things were moving rapidly. Somebody hadcoined and publicized the term "Marconi waves";Marconi approved ofit. In an interview with McClureSMagazine,Marconi remarked that hiswave from the vertical antenna was not same as Hertz's wave. He

8GeorgeF. FitzGerald to Oliver Heaviside, September 28, 1896, Heaviside Collection,Institution of Electrical Engineers, London.49Lodgeto Fleming, August 26, 1937 (n. 14 above). Lodge's remark on Preece is inLodge to Hill, December 11, 1914 (n. 30 above).50OliverLodge, "PresidentialAddress in Section A,"Annual ReportoftheBritishAssociation

for theAdvancementofScience(1891): 550-51; George F.FitzGerald,"Science and Industry"(lecture to the Irish Industrial League on May7, 1896), in ScientificWritings(n. 35 above),p. 383. For the NPL, see also E. Pyatt, The National PhysicalLaboratory:A History(Bristol,1983), pp. 12-35.5Oliver Lodge to Silvanus P. Thompson, March 16, 1897, Lodge Collection, UCL.


22/34

TheOrigins of WirelessTelegraphyRevisited 737emphasized that his wave could penetrate almost everything.52 Thisstrange comment was accompanied by his splendid practical successes.In March 1897 Marconi succeeded in transmitting over 4 miles; heconquered 8 miles of the Bristol Channel in May. Popular reportspoured forth, and public interest in wireless telegraphy ran high.With his secret box and vertical antenna, Marconi pulled the Hertzianwaves out of the scientific laboratories. At first, as is often the case,scientists were not very effective outside their laboratories. Nobodycould exactly guess what constituted Marconi's secret box. Nobodycould explain why the Marconi wave could communicate across build-ings and even high hills. Most important, it was not certain why onlyMarconi could send the messages over several miles when all others hadfailed.53The views of scientific authorities on Hertzian waves no longerheld. Instead, a practical success, along with public recognition, becamethe new authority.As the editorial of the Electricianremarked, "ProfessorMarconi," along with Tesla and Edison, had become an authority onelectrical science to the British public, instead of Lord Kelvin, George G.Stokes, and H. von Helmholtz.5 An invisible battle between theory andpractice was under way.On June 4, 1897, Preece had planned a lecture on the "Signallingthrough Space without Wires." This was the first Friday Lecture onwireless telegraphy. Having heard this news, Lodge sent Preece a copy ofhis FridayLecture in 1894, "to remind him" of what Lodge had alreadydone.55 In the lecture, Preece compared Marconi to Columbus andapplauded Marconi's feat as "a new system of telegraphy."From Lodge's1894 lecture, Preece quoted Lodge's comment that "half a mile wasnearer the limit of sensibility" and then proudly declared that "half a

5"When asked about the difference, Marconi answered, "I don't know. I am not ascientist, but I doubt if any scientist can tell you." See H.J. W. Dam, "TelegraphywithoutWires:A Possibility of Electrical Science. II. The New Telegraphy-Interview with SignorMarconi," McCluresMagazine8 (March 1897): 389-92. On an episode of how much the"Marconi wave" upset Silvanus Thompson, see Jane Smeal Thompson and Helen G.Thompson, SilvanusPhillips Thompson:His Life and Letters(New York, 1920), p. 81.53ConcerningMarconi's secret box, there was an interesting story. When Frederick T.Trouton, an assistant of FitzGerald, found an ordinary glass-tube coherer in Marconi'ssecret box, Marconi slammed it down again, saying, "you would steal my invention." Onthis, seeJolly, Sir OliverLodge(n. 5 above), p. 148. FitzGerald seems to have first solved thepuzzle of the Marconi system. He analyzed that "whatMarconi is doing with his kites, poles&c &c, is to manufacture an enormous radiator and it is not the short waves of his doubleball arrangement that he is emitting and receiving but the very much longer waves of hiswhole system. By connecting to earth he uses the earth as the second plate of histransmitter.... Anywaya bigopen system is the thing." See George F FitzGeraldto OliverLodge, October 30, 1897, Lodge Collection, UCL.54"TheMan in the Street of Science" (lead article), Electrician39 (1897): 546-47.55OliverLodge to Silvanus P. Thompson, June 1, 1897, Lodge Collection, UCL.


23/34

738 SungookHongmile was the wildest dream." By doing so, Preece successfully derided atheoretician's rash prediction and "scored an effective hit."56The lecture was a blow not only to Lodge but also to most BritishMaxwellians who had engaged in controversy with Preece several yearsbefore. "Preece is," FitzGerald wrote to Lodge indignantly, "distinctlyand intentionally scoffing at scientific men and deserves severe re-buke."57Lodge was concerned about his credits as a mediator betweenpure scientific research and commercial wireless telegraphy. In hisimmediate response as a letter to the London Times,Lodge explainedthat the prediction of a half mile was "a scientific one, concerning thesmall and early apparatus."He emphasized that he himself showed "thesame plan of signalling in 1894." Lodge also emphasized that Marconi'scoherer had been used by Rayleigh and Lodge himself.5Lodge here tried two different, but related, strategies. The firstwas tostress the essential similarity of his 1894 experiments to Marconi'stelegraphy. As Lodge reminded Thompson, "we had the automatictapping back in '94 at Oxford;... we have really had the tapper workedas a relay too & collectors to the coherer; in fact, the whole thing exceptthe best conducting vacuum coherer."59Lodge's second strategy was tofind the connection between the efforts of the British scientific men likeLodge and Marconi's wireless telegraphy. But neither of these twostrategies was easy. Lodge's 1894 lectures were not of a telegraphicnature at all, and the connections of the British scientists with Marconiwere too indirect. Frederick T. Trouton, an assistant of FitzGerald, hadadvised Marconi in 1893 or 1894 via one of Marconi's friends. ButTrouton's advice proved neither scientific nor of the technical kind.60Such efforts, however, became meaningless after Marconi's patent wasaccepted. The impact of Marconi's patent was much more profoundthan his practical successes.

Marconis Patent "forEverything"On June 16, 1897, about two weeks after Preece's Royal Institutionlecture, and two weeks before the final acceptance of Marconi's patent,an interesting demonstration was held at the Royal Society soiree. In theentrance hall, Preece and Marconi demonstrated wireless telegraphy intheir receptive method of "Signalling through Space without Wires";on6"Notes"(n. 45 above). For Preece's FridayLecture, see William H. Preece, "Signallingthrough Space without Wires," Electrician39 (1897): 216-18. The lecture was later

published in the Proceedingsof theRoyalInstitution15 (1896/97): 467-76.57GeorgeF. FitzGerald to Oliver Lodge, June 21, 1897, Lodge Collection, UCL.5Oliver Lodge, "Telegraphywithout Wires,"LondonTimes,June 22, 1897.9'Lodgeto Thompson, June 1, 1897 (n. 55 above).G'FitzGeraldto Lodge, June 21, 1897 (n. 57 above).


24/34

TheOrigins of WirelessTelegraphyRevisited 739the second floor, Muirhead demonstrated the same "as practised by Dr.Oliver Lodge in 1894."Here, Muirhead used a Branly tube and a Morseinker, and Preece and Marconi used a Morse sounder. The distancesbetween the transmitters and the receivers were about 100 feet. Accord-ing to the Electrician'sjudgment, "Lodge's system worked satisfactorily,"and "the marking of the signals on the ribbon were undoubtedly distinctand readable."61From this brief description, we can notice thatAlexander Muirhead hadcollaborated with Lodge, igniting the competition between Marconi'sandLodge's method. About a month earlier,Lodge had filed a patent on the"Improvementsin Syntonized Telegraphywithout Line Wires."As the titleindicates, the principle of syntony or tuning by varying the inductance ofthe transmitter and the receiver was its central part. The patent is nowfamous as the first patent on syntony. But its provisional specificationclaimed more than that.Another important claimwason Lodge's improve-ment of Branly'stube filings and its use as a detector. Lodge also made aclaim on his tapping device such as an electric bell and a clockwork. Inshort, the patent was on the Lodgian system of wireless telegraphy.62Marconi had filed his provisional specification on June 2, 1896, abouta year before Lodge's patent. There was no doubt that Marconi's patentwas the firstpatent on Hertzian wave telegraphy, but there existed muchdoubt about its power. For Marconi's success to be continued commer-cially, the patent had to be strong enough to overcome the subsequentlitigation. But its provisional specification shows the immature Mar-conism clearly. For instance, as Aitken points out, it contains suchpassages as "whentransmittingthroughtheearthor waterI connect one endof the tube or contact to earth and the other to conductors" (emphasisadded). This illustrates Marconi's early conviction that waves from avertical antenna were different from Hertzian waves.63In addition, anautomatic tapper of Marconi's own design, operated by the relaycurrent, was described side by side with an independent trembler ofLodge's clockwork type. If he had committed the same mistake in thecomplete specification, he would have invalidated his patent.

61"Notes"(n. 45 above), p. 237. See also "The Royal Society Conversazione," Nature56(1897):185.6Oliver Lodge, "Improvements in Syntonized Telegraphy without Line Wires," no.11,575, Provisional Specification (date of application, May 10, 1897), and CompleteSpecification (February 5, 1898; date of acceptance, August 10, 1898). For Lodge'ssyntony, see Aitken, Syntonyand Spark(n. 4 above), pp. 130-42.6Aitken, Syntonyand Spark,pp. 285-86, n. 12. See also Guglielmo Marconi, "Improve-ments in Transmitting Electrical Impulses and Signals, and in Apparatus Therefor, " no.12,039, Provisional Specification (date of application, June 2, 1896). The content of thepatent, of course, had been kept secret until its complete specification was accepted onJuly 2, 1897.


25/34

740 SungookHongWithout doubt, Marconi could safely patent two things: a tapperactivated by the relay current,6 and an antenna, that is, the aerial andthe earth connection for the transmitter and the coherer.5 Except forthese two, the matter wasextremely uncertain. His transmitterwas of theRighi type, his detector was an improved Branly filing-tube coherer, andhis relay and inker were ordinary telegraphic devices. The coherer wasmost problematic. Even though the British patent on invention wasgiven to the one who had first applied for it rather than to the personwho had first invented the device or published it, it wasgenerally believedthat Marconi'sclaim on the coherer must be a modest one, restrictinghisclaim to the improvement of its sensitivity. Even expert opinion wasvacillating, as is shown by the following remark of FitzGerald:

Trouton was sufficiently impressed with its [Marconi's secret box's]value to venture some money in the concern. Since finding out howthe thing is reallyworked he has become much more doubtful as tothe validity of the patents and has refused to put any more moneyinto it. It is all a question of patent rights and may depend on sucha question as that mercury [in the coherer] is important in order tomake the thing work with certainty and that a hammer worked bythe relay itself is important and so forth. If these things are of valueand patentable, the patents may be of considerable importance.Branly'stube, Righi's emitter &c are all certainly impatentable, butso many things go to make up a workable invention that Marconi'spatents may be valuable.6However, FitzGerald'sconclusion was optimistic: "As far as I can judgefrom what I am told it is only details that are patentable and their valueis not proved." The editorial opinion of the Electricianwas similar. Thispredicted that Marconi's patent would not be a master patent, becausethe general principles underlying the apparatus, as well as the appara-tuses themselves, were not new.7 And there was another factor contrib-uting to such optimism. Since Marconi was not a man of science, he hadprobably committed an error in describing the principle of wirelesstelegraphy (as he did in his provisional specification). If such were the

6Even Lodge admitted Marconi's novelty in the tapping system. See Oliver Lodge,"Report to the Chief Engineer of the Government Telegraphs" (June 1900), in ADM. 116.570, Public Record Office, London, p. 5.6For a contemporary witness on Marconi'santenna, see A. Slaby,"The New Telegraphy:Recent Experiments in Telegraphy with Sparks," CenturyMagazine 55 (April 1898):867-74, esp. 870-71. Even Lodge admitted that this was Marconi'shighly original novelty.See Lodge, Signalling throughSpacewithout Wires(n. 21 above), p. 47.6FitzGerald to Lodge, June 21, 1897 (n. 57 above).67"Notes"(n. 45 above), p. 431.


26/34

TheOrigins of WirelessTelegraphyRevisitedcase, the patent would be invalidated. At the very least, this might leaveroom for another patent.The complete specification for Marconi's patent was filed on March 2,1897. But, as Aitken comments, it was a "different kind of documententirely."6 Between the provisional and complete specification, Marconihad secured the crucial assistance ofJ. Fletcher Moulton, certainly themost famous patent expert in Britain.6 Moulton's assistance surprisedthe Maxwellians. Thompson wrote to Lodge on June 30, 1897, "Ihappen to know that Moulton was called in to advise Marconi on theclaim of his final specification of patent, ... and he advised him to claimeverything.I understand that as the claim was drawn, they claim, fortelegraphy,not only coherers, oscillators, & such like details, but evenHertz waves! ... there is nothing new except the Hertz wave, theoscillator & the coherer, and these are not patented nor patentable."70Marconi's patent was accepted on July 2, 1897. Meanwhile, Marconi,who had been under the patronage of Preece and the Post Office,formed a private company to exploit his patent.71As the contents of Marconi's patent were publicized, his secret boxwas finally opened (see fig. 4). Marconi detailed his inventions andattached nineteen claims. To everyone's surprise, most of these claimswere related to coherers and the various methods of connecting them,such as the ground connection. The claims were not limited to hisimprovement, but to the coherer itself. There were claims on the balltransmitters of Righi type, relay and hammer tapper, even his improvedinduction coils and the antenna (elevated condenser plate, not verticalwire).7 In addition, an awkwardexpression like "transmitting throughearth and water" was replaced by a more refined expression like

6Aitken, Syntonyand Spark(n. 4 above), p. 204.6John Fletcher Moulton (1844-1921) was the first Smith's Prizeman and SeniorWrangler of the Mathematical Tripos in Cambridge, in 1868. He soon became Fellow ofthe Royal Society as a result of his electrical research and then engaged in legal works. SeeHugh Fletcher Moulton, TheLife of LordMoulton (London, 1922); Dictionaryof NationalBiography(1912-21), s.v. "John Fletcher Moulton," pp. 392-94.7Silvanus P. Thompson to Oliver Lodge, June 30, 1897, Lodge Collection, UCL.71Itwas on July 20, 1897, and the company was the Wireless Telegraph and SignalCompany. In February 1900 the name was changed to Marconi's Wireless TelegraphCompany. For the early history of the company, see W.J. Baker, A History of theMarconiCompany(London, 1970), pp. 35 ff.'Under the British patent system at that time, in which the comptroller of the PatentOffice had no power over the contents of the patent, an inventor could claim as manyinventions as he wanted in a single specification at his own risk. In cases of some newinventions, an inventor could deliberately forge the claims with the effect of monopolizingthe "principle" of that invention, rather than merely a specific artifact. Marconi's patentwas close to such cases. James Watt's powerful patent on his new steam engine with aseparate condenser is another example. Refer to EncyclopaediaBritannica(Chicago, 1961),

741


27/34

742 SungookHong

FIG. 4.-Marconi around 1900 with his "secret box" open. (Courtesy of the MarconiCompany Archives, Chelmsford.)transmitting "where obstacles, such as many houses or a hill or moun-tains, intervene between the transmitter and the receiver."73In terms ofscientific principles, there was no mistake. FitzGeraldnoted that "Moul-ton has drawn his patents too cutely to commit him to any particulartheory of what he is doing." Even the critical Electricianappraised thespecification as "a model of perspicuity."74How did Marconi, who was thought of as a modest and open youth,dare to claim everything in the Hertzian waves? How did he claim anoriginality over the Branly tube that had been used and improved byLodge, and over the ball transmitter of Righi type?75Once Marconi'swidely ranging patent was accepted, Lodge had to withdraw his claimson the coherer and tapping device in filing his complete specificationthe following year. Only the principle of syntony was left in Lodge'spatent. With this defeat, Lodge must have felt an immense frustrationand a feeling of betrayal.s.v."Patent,"17:372. See also E. Robinson, "JamesWattand the Law of Patents," Technologyand Culture13 (1972): 115-39.

SGuglielmo Marconi, "Improvements in Transmitting Electrical Impulses and Signals,and in Apparatus Therefor," no. 12,039, Complete Specification (March 2, 1897). Thepatent is also printed inJ.J. Fahie, A Historyof WirelessTelegraphy,1838-1899 (New York,1899), pp. 296-320.74"Notes"(n. 45 above), p. 665. On FitzGerald's comment, see FitzGerald to Lodge,October 30, 1897 (n. 53 above).

75Justafter Marconi'spatent waspublished, Electricianpublished a series of articles on thecoherer, including Lodge's "History of the Coherer Principle" (n. 19 above).


28/34

TheOriginsof WirelessTelegraphyRevisited 743An element of nationalism deepened the frustration. Marconi was anItalian. The "ether" had been discovered by great British scientists likeFaraday,Kelvin,and Maxwell.The Maxwellianswere their heirs, but theyhad lost the priority of the discovery of electromagnetic waves to aGerman, Heinrich Hertz. Maxwell's electromagnetic wave was thennamed the Hertzian wave. Lodge tried to change its name to the"Maxwellian wave" at Oxford, but he failed as a result of the strongobjection of another German scientist, Ludwig Boltzmann.76The possi-bility of a commercial use of the ether was then opened by Marconi.This rendered Lodge twice narrowly anticipated by foreigners inimportant discoveries. Marconi's comprehensive patent worsened

things. The immense use of wireless telegraphy during wartime and fornaval ships seemed obvious. If Marconi's patent went unchallenged, itwould monopolize not only Hertzian waves but also important Britishnational interests. It was thus no accident that, after Marconi's patent,many British scientists and engineers such as J.J. Thomson, Minchin,Rollo Appleyard, and Campbell Swintonjoined with Lodge in deprecat-ing Marconi's originality.77As Thompson reported in 1899, "They were evidently purposelydrafted as widely as possible to cover all possible extensions to telegra-phy, explosion of mines, and the like, which, indeed, were talked aboutpublicly in connection with Marconi from the first.... they are notpatents for telegraphy, but for the transmission by Hertz waves of signalsor impulses of any kind.... In this sense beyond all question Lodge wasusing Hertz waves for a wireless 'telegraph' in 1894."78For Lodge andThompson, it was Marconi, with his marvelously broad claims, who firstviolated "the rules of the game." Thus, there was no need for them tofollow the rules.

ConstructingLodgesPriorityNow let us examine Aitken's first source, an article in the Electricianentitled "Dr. Oliver Lodge's Apparatus for Wireless Telegraphy." Thearticle was intentionally published side by side with Marconi's patent asthe "best antidote of Marconism."79Aitken apparently thought that thearticle could support the claim of Lodge's telegraphy in 1894. But therewas in fact no mention of Lodge's telegraphic trial.What the article said76Forthis episode, see "The BritishAssociation," LondonTimes,August 15, 1894; Lodge,AdvancingScience(n. 31 above), pp. 162-63. Even after this, Lodge often used the term"Maxwellianwave"; see, e.g., his "History of the Coherer Principle," p. 89."Pocock (n. 5 above), pp. 103-5.7Silvanus P. Thompson, "Report of Wireless Telegraph Patents" (1900), in ADM. 116.570, Public Record Office, p. 38.9"Notes"(n. 45 above), p. 665.


29/34

744 SungookHongwas that "Lodge described and exhibited publicly in operation acombination of sending and receiving apparatusconstituting a system oftelegraphy substantially the same as that now claimed in" Marconi'spatent, and that "Dr.Lodge published enough three yearsago to enablethe most simple-minded 'practician' to compound a system of practicaltelegraphy."80These two strategies are exactly the same as Lodge's twostrategies, namely, identifying the principles of his experiments in 1894with those in Marconi's wireless telegraphy and stressing the possibleinfluence of Lodge on Marconi.After 1898, the "Maxwell-Hertz-Marconi"genealogy in wireless teleg-raphy was firmly established. More so, Lodge and Thompson tried allpossible waysof refuting Marconi. In order to weaken Marconi's patent,they advertised that, due to the wires ("base lines," as Thompson calledthem), "there is no such thing as wireless telegraphy." They publicizedother scientists' success, particularlyAdolf Slaby'ssuccess in Germany.8'But, most important for our discussions, Lodge's 1894 experimentsbegan to be interpreted as telegraphic in nature. Thompson for the firsttime forged the claim that "on several occasions, and notably at Oxfordin 1894, he showed how such coherers could be used in transmittingtelegraphicsignalsto a distance. He showed that they would work throughsolid walls. Lodge's great distance at that time had not exceeded some100 or 150 yards. Communicationwas thus made between the UniversityMuseum and the adjacent building of the Clarendon Laboratory"82(emphasis added). It marked the beginning of the long story of Lodge'stelegraphy in 1894.Thompson's "telegraphic interpretation" of Lodge's 1894 experi-ments did not appear in Lodge's own writings. In 1900, Lodge admittedthat "the writer [Lodge] himself did not pursue the matter into tele-graphic application, because he was unaware that there would be anydemand for this kind of telegraph."83 In the third edition of hisSignalling throughSpacewithout Wires(1900), which Fleming even criti-cized as "a perversion of fact,"84Lodge's recollection was essentially thesame, saying that "so far as the present author was concerned he did notrealise that there would be any particular advantage in thus withdifficulty telegraphing across space.... In this non-perception of thepractical uses of wireless telegraphy he undoubtedly erred."85

80"Dr.Oliver Lodge's Apparatus for Wireless Telegraphy" (n. 9 above)."Thompson, "Telegraphy Across Space" (n. 40 above); "Dr. Lodge on WirelessTelegraphy,"ElectricalReview42 (1898): 103-4.8"Thompson, "TelegraphyAcross Space," p. 458.8Lodge, "Report to the Chief Engineer of the Government Telegraphs" (n. 64 above).84JohnAmbrose Fleming to Guglielmo Marconi, January 12, 1900, Marconi CompanyArchives, Chelmsford.8Lodge, Signalling throughSpacewithoutWires(n. 21 above), p. 45.


30/34

TheOriginsof WirelessTelegraphyRevisited 745Lodge wasat that time developing an alternativesystemof induction ormagnetic telegraphy to compete with Marconi's. For this, Lodge allied in1898 with Preece, who felt betrayed after Marconi had formed a privatecompany.8 In 1901, Lodge, then principal of Birmingham University,alsolaunched the Lodge-Muirhead Syndicate. At that time, the MarconiCompany tried to contract with the Royal Navy, Lloyd's, and the PostOffice but encountered a series of obstacles. The Post Office had planneda patent litigation with Marconi's company in 1899 and asked Lodge andThompson their expert opinion on Marconi's 1896 patent.87BecausePreece was skeptical about the litigation, it was finally given up. Thefollowing year, the Royal Navy, which had been suspicious of Marconi'sconnection with the Italian Navy, prepared another litigation and wasgiven the report of Lodge and Thompson from the Post Office. Thislitigation was finally abandoned, after Captain HenryJackson, an expertin wireless telegraphy in the Royal Navy and Marconi'sfriend, advised theAdmiralty not to pursue it.88Instead of contracting with the MarconiCompany, Lloyd'shad tried to develop its own system.The year 1901 was a very lucky one for Marconi. Lodge eventuallyabandoned induction telegraphy after his failure in the summer. TheRoyal Navy and Lloyd's contracted with the Marconi Company for theuse of Marconi's system. In December 1901, Marconi succeeded in thetransatlantic transmission of the signal "SSS"over 1,800 miles. After thisevent, Marconi's success was too obvious to be challenged. Lodge andThompson lost their chance. Moreover, as Fleming, Lodge's friend andprofessor of electrical engineering at University College, London,became scientific advisor to the Marconi Company in 1899 and FitzGer-ald died in 1901, the Maxwellian camp was breaking up. The situationbecame more and more unbearable to Lodge and Thompson, whothought that Marconi's successes were based on his violation of the rulesof the game in 1896-97.In April 1902, even before the heat of Marconi's first transatlanticsuccess had dissipated, Thompson revived the issue of the invention of8Oliver Lodge to William H. Preece, March 4, 1898, in E. C. Baker, Sir WilliamPreece,E R S.: VictorianEngineerExtraordinary(London, 1976), pp. 299-300. For Lodge's andPreece's magnetic induction telegraphy, see Oliver Lodge, "Improvements in MagneticSpace Telegraphy," Journal of the Institution of ElectricalEngineers27 (1898): 798-849;William H. Preece, "Aetheric Telegraphy,"Journalof theInstitutionofElectricalEngineers27(1898): 869-86.87Lodge, "Report to the Chief Engineer of the Government Telegraphs" (n. 64 above);Thompson, "Report of WirelessTelegraph Patents" (n. 78 above). Thompson summarized(on p. 36) that Marconi's claims were either invalid or unessential.s'For an account of these corporate politics around 1900, seeJolly, Marconi(n. 5 above),pp. 68 ff. Jackson's report on Lodge's and Thompson's reports is in the form of a letter,Capt.Jackson to J. A. Fisher, in ADM. 116. 570, Public Record Office.


31/34

746 SungookHongwireless telegraphy by attacking Marconi in the SaturdayReview.Hewrote that "Signor Marconi is not the inventor, but the skilled exploiter,of telegraphy without wires" and that "the original inventor of thewireless telegraphy" is "Professor Oliver Lodge." Lodge was transformedhere from a pioneer to the original inventor of wireless telegraphy.Thompson's evidence was nothing new: Lodge had used a ball oscillator,coherer, relay, and automatic tapper in 1894 and delivered "a signal inthe telegraphic instrument."89Thompson's motivation was also unorigi-nal: Marconi, consciously or unconsciously, devalued scientists' priorcredits by violating the rules of the game.Lodge wrote to Thompson in appreciation of "the way in which yourefer to my claims or rights in the matter."He added that "the opinion ofone who is alwaysso well informed on historical subjects ought to carryconsiderable weight."9 Marconi, however, was embarrassed by Thomp-son's attack. In his reply, Marconi stressed his priority in patents and thenovelty in his antenna and tapper design.91Thompson rejoined again,criticizing Marconi: "Now the matter does not rest on any assertion ofmine (for there are scores of persons livingwho witnessed it) that in 1894Principal Lodge did publicly transmit signals from one building toanother, through several stone walls,without connecting wires, by meansof Hertzianwaveswhich were received perfectlyclearlyupon a telegraphicinstrument to which these waves were relayed by means of an automati-cally tapped 'coherer.' If that is not wireless telegraphy, then the term hasno meaning."92On this matter, Marconi,who was not good at controversyand had not been in Britain in 1894, could make no further reply.The issue was raised again in 1906, when the second InternationalCongress on Wireless Telegraphy took place. Thompson reiterated hisclaim of Lodge's priority, but this time Fleming refuted Thompson'sclaim: "When it is asserted that Lodge sent 'signals' by electric waves in1894, what it meant is that he caused an oscillatory electric spark madein one room or building to affect a coherer and so move the needle of agalvanometer in an adjacent room, and showed these experiments both atthe RoyalInstitution inJune, 1894, and at the BritishAssociation, Oxford,in the same year. But there was not a single trace of any suggestion ofapplication to telegraphy in his lecture and in the reprint of it."93

'Silvanus P. Thompson, "The Inventor of Wireless Telegraphy," SaturdayReview93(1902): 424-25 (quoted on p. 424).90OliverLodge to Silvanus P. Thompson, April 11, 1902, Lodge Collection, UCL.91GuglielmoMarconi, "The Inventor of Wireless Telegraphy:A Reply,"SaturdayReview93 (1902): 556-57.92SilvanusP.Thompson, "WirelessTelegraphy:A Rejoinder," SaturdayReview93 (1902):598-99.93JohnAmbrose Fleming, "WirelessTelegraphy: To the Editor of The Times,"LondonTimes,October 29, 1906. Refer also to the articles of Silvanus P. Thompson (October 12,


32/34

TheOrigins of WirelessTelegraphyRevisited 747In a widely read article on "WirelessTelegraphy" in the EncyclopaediaBritannica(11th ed., 1911), Fleming again refu

Documents

WirelessRevisited