AWA Review 2009 D.E. Hughes' WIRELESS DISCOVERY IN 1879? Hughes was a great experimenter, and nowhere is it more apparent than when reading his notebooks. Here the experiments come alive as the reader follows the scrawled handwriting from one page to the next. He was methodical and innovative; his peers saw him as a gifted experimenter as he seemed to have the ability to be able to hit on the right approach or combination of experiments that brought about success. His next discovery was probably his most innovative, but was to be a bittersweet story. His experimentation resulting in the discovery of wireless became virtually hidden for many (~20) years and his discoveries only became known in the waning years of his life. His experiments took place anumber of years before Hertz and Marconi. History finally credited him with the discovery but over time it has slipped off the pages of history. It all came about when Hughes was experimenting with his induction balance in the fall of 1879. He had started with a primary circuit consisting of a set of coils being pulsed from a battery by a clockwork-driven contactor. A secondary circuit consisted of a second set of coils inductively coupled to the first that were connected to a telephone receiver. When he rearranged this configuration, it gave him some unexpected results in that he could still hear the make and break signal even when he thought he shouldn’t. He suspected it was either due to an effect called the “extra current” (the current induced in an inductor when its magnetic field rises or collapses) or the breakdown in the insulation of one of the coils. However, it turned out to be a loose connection between some wires. As the effect was puzzling, he pursued it, substituting one loose connection for another by inserting one of his loose connection microphonic joints from his microphone experiments. Still he continued to hear the signal in his telephone receiver. The mystery grew as he separated the primary circuit from the secondary by some distance and only connected by a single wire. He was struggling to understand how the signal could be heard with a circuit that was apparently incomplete--that is an open circuit. He also experimented by removing the coils from the secondary part of the circuit and he could still hear the signal of the make and break in the telephone receiver. He then proceeded to the next inevitable step. He cut the connecting wire and still could hear the signal. He was baffled and rationalized that the signal must be traveling between the two circuits by “conduction” through the building structure. Initially the gap between the two circuits was only six feet. He then moved the receiver (although Hughes didn’t use this term until much later) to the next room, and eventually some 60 feet of paration. What was significant was that he was detecting the make and break with a receiver in which the secondary coils had been removed and consisted only of a telephonereceiver in parallel with his microphonic joint. In these experiments, he had started to ground one side of the circuit to either a gas pipe or water pipe (not unusual for a telegraph engineer).He also took the receiver a couple of floors down in his house to his basement where he could stillplainly hear. He grounded the receiver to one of the pipes and be lieved the signal grew louder andput this down to the fact that the different metals were creating a battery effect. This led him to adda small low voltage battery to the receiver circuit with the microphonic joint. To solve the mystery as to howsignals were traveling between the transmitter and receiver hesuspended the receiver by nonconducting cords from the ceiling and concluded that it could nolonger be conduction through the house structure but the signal was coming through the ether (the airwas considered to be more complex in the Victorian period). He concluded it was traveling by lines of force and the more of them he intercepted the louder he could hear the signal. It is surmised he came to this conclusion by com-paring it to the invisible lines of force that surround a magnet or current carrying conductor. Although he continued to callthe device a microphonic joint it had become a detector andthrough extensive experimentation it had taken on a much different form and characteristics. His experiments revolved around trying to improve this device so that he could hear signals louder.He settled finally on two configurations for the detector: of oxidized copper wires looped together, and the other a steel needle resting on a piece of coke. He encapsulated these detectors intosmall bottles for protection. In arriving at these he had also tried many other forms of his microphone components with mixed results such as a glass tube filled with metal filings and iron wires dipped into mercury. Hughes next took his receiver and walked out into the street and continued walking, and was still able to hear the signal until by 500 yards it had faded away. This was an embryonic “wireless” experiment but the phenomenon of creating the invisible electromagnetic waves and being able to detect their presence was unknown at the time. It is interesting to note that his previous inventions of the microphone and induction balance and his use of the telephone receiver were all necessary prerequisites and essential ingredients leading up to this discovery. Hughes was a scientist of the school that was called “the practical men” whereby discoveries were made by experimenting. Any supporting theory or formula was a rarity and quite often re-garded as suspect by these “practical men”. However there was a new breed of scientist surfacing.These were mathematicians and physicists who tackled problems first from a theoretical point of view. One such person was James Clerk Maxwell, a brilliant Scottish mathematician and physicist working at Cambridge University. In the 1870’s he pre-dicted mathematically the theory of electromagnetic radiation, (the basis of wireless signals), a theory he amazingly developed without any experimental evidence or indication of how electromagneticwaves might be produced or detected. Looking back, this was profound, and its impact wasn’t fully understood at the time. Meanwhile, just over 50 miles away in London, Hughes had experimentally demonstrated just what Maxwell had predicted and had produced electromagnetic waves and detected them -– which was the experimental validation of his theory and the missing link. Unfortunately, fate was to intervene. Maxwell died young in 1879, the year Hughes made his discoveries, and Hughes, who was not a mathematician, would not have been able to decipher Maxwell’s complex mathematical equations. Hughes, however, was so excited by what he had discoveredthat he repeated his experiments in 1880 to important members of the Royal Society, the premier scientific organization of the day that included Professor Gabriel Stokes. Stokes was also from Cambridge University and a mathematician who knew Maxwell and was aware of his work. Could he possibly make the connection between Maxwell’s theories and Hughes' experiments? However,it all unraveled, and what could have been the start to a brilliant discovery, possibly Hughes' greatest, and the verification of Maxwell’s work was stopped dead. Stokes observed the experiment and stated that it was not a new phenomenon and could be explained by already known facts of electromagnetic induction. He failed to make any connection with Maxwell’s theories or recognize it as a new phenomenon. It was just like pricking a balloon, dashing Hughes’ hopes and swaying the opinion of the other observers in the process. Thus, a promising discovery, instead of being encouraged, was scuttled. Hughes was frustrated and angry after the meeting. For some reason, though, Hughes did not appear to have talked about his theory of the signals being transmitted by lines of force, but talked about conduction, probably confusing the issue. Hughes was, however, reluc-tant to cross Professor Stokes, a man whose opinion was so widely influential. It is unfortunate that these experiments were not disclosed to scientists with a better understanding such as Oliver Lodge or George Francis FitzGerald. These two young scientists had become fascinated by Maxwell’s work and could have perhaps grasped the significance of Hughes experiments, and so could have advised him accordingly. Hughes by this time had probably become aware that he was to be proposed for membership to the Royal Society, a status that he deeply sought. This provided a further reason not to strike any discord with Stokes or the other members of the Royal Society for fear of jeopardizing his election. Had Hughes’ work been recog-nized at the time it would have predated Hertz by nearly a decade and Marconi by two decades. As it was, his wireless experiments were not to come to the attention of the general scientificcommunity for another twenty years when Sir William Crookes made some remarks about witnessing some of Hughes wireless experiments many years earlier. The author J.J. Fahie, who was close to completing a book on the “History of Wireless Telegraphy 1839-1899”, was, like many others taken completely unaware. He immediately contacted Hughes to follow up on Crookes' remarks. Hughes at first was reluctant to divulge the information, unwilling to upstage the work of Hertz and Marconi that had occurred in the intervening years. A generous gesture. Fahie was eventually successful in persuading Hughes to relate to him the experiments and included them into his book. They were also recounted in a number of technical journals. Hughes did become a “Fellow” of the prestigious Royal Society in 1880 and continued research and experimentation. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AWA Review 2009 D.E. Hughes' WIRELESS DISCOVERY IN 1879? Hughes was a great experimenter, and nowhere is it more apparent than when reading his notebooks. Here the experiments come alive as the reader follows the scrawled handwriting from one page to the next. He was methodical and innovative; his peers saw him as a gifted experimenter, as he seemed to have the ability to be able to hit on the right approach or combination of experiments that brought about success. His next discovery was probably his most innovative, but was to be a bittersweet story. His experimentation resulting in the discovery of wireless became virtually hidden for many (~20) years and his discoveries only became known in the waning years of his life. His experiments took place a number of years before Hertz and Marconi. History finally credited him with the discovery but over time it has slipped off the pages of history. It all came about when Hughes was experimenting with his induction balance in the fall of 1879. He had started with a primary circuit consisting of a set of coils being pulsed from a battery by a clockwork-driven contactor. A secondary circuit consisted of a second set of coils inductively coupled to the first that were connected to a telephone receiver. When he rearranged this configuration, it gave him some unexpected results in that he could still hear the make and break signal even when he thought he shouldn’t. He suspected it was either due to an effect called the “extra current” (the current induced in an inductor when its magnetic field rises or collapses) or the breakdown in the insulation of one of the coils. However, it turned out to be a loose connection between some wires. As the effect was puzzling, he pursued it, substituting one loose connection for another by inserting one of his loose connection microphonic joints from his microphone experiments. Still he continued to hear the signal in his telephone receiver. The mystery grew as he separated the primary circuit from the secondary by some distance and only connected by a single wire. He was struggling to understand how the signal could be heard with a circuit that was apparently incomplete--that is an open circuit. He also experimented by removing the coils from the secondary part of the circuit and he could still hear the signal of the make and break in the telephone receiver. He then proceeded to the next inevitable step. He cut the connecting wire and still could hear the signal. He was baffled and rationalized that the signal must be traveling between the two circuits by “conduction” through the building structure. Initially the gap between the two circuits was only six feet. He then moved the receiver (although Hughes didn’t use this term until much later) to the next room, and eventually some 60 feet of partition. What was significant was that he was detecting the make and break with a receiver in which the secondary coils had been removed and consisted only of a telephone receiver in parallel with his microphonic joint. In these experiments, he had started to ground one side of the circuit to either a gas pipe or water pipe (not unusual for a telegraph engineer). He also took the receiver a couple of floors down in his house to his basement where he could still plainly hear the signal. He grounded the receiver to one of the pipes and believed the signal grew louder and put this down to the fact that the different metals were creating a battery effect. This led him to add a small low voltage battery to the receiver circuit with the microphonic joint. To solve the mystery as to how signals were traveling between the transmitter and receiver, he suspended the receiver by non-conducting cords from the ceiling and concluded that it could no longer be conduction through the house structure but the signal was coming through the ether (the air was considered to be more complex in the Victorian period). He concluded it was traveling by lines of force and the more of them he intercepted the louder he could hear the signal. It is surmised he came to this conclusion by comparing it to the invisible lines of force that surround a magnet or current carrying conductor. Although he continued to call the device a microphonic joint it had become a detector and through extensive experimentation it had taken on a much different form and characteristics. His experiments revolved around trying to improve this device so that he could hear signals louder. He settled finally on two configurations for the detector: of oxidized copper wires looped together, and the other a steel needle resting on a piece of coke. He encapsulated these detectors into small bottles for protection. In arriving at these he had also tried many other forms of his microphone components with mixed results such as a glass tube filled with metal filings and iron wires dipped into mercury. Hughes next took his receiver and walked out into the street and continued walking, and was still able to hear the signal until by 500 yards it had faded away. This was an embryonic “wireless” experiment but the phenomenon of creating the invisible electromagnetic waves and being able to detect their presence was unknown at the time. It is interesting to note that his previous inventions of the microphone and induction balance and his use of the telephone receiver were all necessary prerequisites and essential ingredients leading up to this discovery. Hughes was a scientist of the school that was called “the practical men” whereby discoveries were made by experimenting. Any supporting theory or formula was a rarity and quite often regarded as suspect by these “practical men”. However there was a new breed of scientist surfacing. These were mathematicians and physicists who tackled problems first from a theoretical point of view. One such person was James Clerk Maxwell, a brilliant Scottish mathematician and physicist working at Cambridge University. In the 1870’s he predicted mathematically the theory of electromagnetic radiation, (the basis of wireless signals), a theory he amazingly developed without any experimental evidence or indication of how electromagnetic waves might be produced or detected. Looking back, this was profound, and its impact wasn’t fully understood at the time. Meanwhile, just over 50 miles away in London, Hughes had experimentally demonstrated just what Maxwell had predicted and had produced electromagnetic waves and detected them -– which was the experimental validation of his theory and the missing link. Unfortunately, fate was to intervene. Maxwell died young in 1879, the year Hughes made his discoveries, and Hughes, who was not a mathematician, would not have been able to decipher Maxwell’s complex mathematical equations. Hughes, however, was so excited by what he had discovered that he repeated his experiments in 1880 to important members of the Royal Society, the premier scientific organization of the day that included Professor Gabriel Stokes. Stokes was also from Cambridge University and a mathematician who knew Maxwell and was aware of his work. Could he possibly make the connection between Maxwell’s theories and Hughes' experiments? However,it all unraveled, and what could have been the start to a brilliant discovery, possibly Hughes' greatest, and the verification of Maxwell’s work was stopped dead. Stokes observed the experiment and stated that it was not a new phenomenon and could be explained by already known facts of electromagnetic induction. He failed to make any connection with Maxwell’s theories or recognize it as a new phenomenon. It was just like pricking a balloon, dashing Hughes’ hopes and swaying the opinion of the other observers in the process. Thus, a promising discovery, instead of being encouraged, was scuttled. Hughes was frustrated and angry after the meeting. For some reason, though, Hughes did not appear to have talked about his theory of the signals being transmitted by lines of force, but talked about conduction, probably confusing the issue. Hughes was, however, reluctant to cross Professor Stokes, a man whose opinion was so widely influential. It is unfortunate that these experiments were not disclosed to scientists with a better understanding such as Oliver Lodge or George Francis Fitz Gerald. These two young scientists had become fascinated by Maxwell’s work and could have perhaps grasped the significance of Hughes' experiments, and so could have advised him accordingly. Hughes by this time had probably become aware that he was to be proposed for membership to the Royal Society, a status that he deeply sought. This provided a further reason not to strike any discord with Stokes or the other members of the Royal Society for fear of jeopardizing his election. Had Hughes’ work been recognized at the time it would have predated Hertz by nearly a decade and Marconi by two decades. As it was, his wireless experiments were not to come to the attention of the general scientific community for another twenty years when Sir William Crookes made some remarks about witnessing some of Hughes wireless experiments many years earlier. The author J.J. Fahie, who was close to completing a book on the “History of Wireless Telegraphy 1839-1899”, was, like many others taken completely unaware. He immediately contacted Hughes to follow up on Crookes' remarks. Hughes at first was reluctant to divulge the information, unwilling to upstage the work of Hertz and Marconi that had occurred in the intervening years. A generous gesture. Fahie was eventually successful in persuading Hughes to relate to him the experiments and included them into his book. They were also recounted in a number of technical journals. Hughes did become a “Fellow” of the prestigious Royal Society in 1880 and continued research and experimentation. ====================================================================================================== https://docplayer.net/171539166-Telecommunications-heritage-journal.html Prof. David Edward Hughes - The Telephone Era Fons Vanden Berghen In his previous article in Issue 108, Fons described Hughes early life and his work on Telegraphy. In this article, Fons tells of Hughes' developments in Telephony. Prof. David Edward Hughes The Telephone Era Alexander Graham Bell had just introduced his telephone, and it was the talk of the town. Whilst it was a wonderful invention, it had its limitations. Hughes, along with others, was quick to recognize this. Bell s telephone used the same electromagnetic component and diaphragm both as a receiver and transmitter. While it worked well for the former, it lacked power as a transmitter and Bell telephone [BT Archives] therefore was limited in its signal output, and hence its range of transmission. Hughes decided it would make a good research project. While he recognized the components as functioning pieces of the telephone he saw them also as splendid pieces of test equipment. The telephone receiver, for him, was a device that enabled the amplitude and frequency range of signals to be easily measured for the first time over a wide dynamic range. He constructed a number of receivers for his own use as pieces of laboratory equipment. Next, he turned his attention to the transmitter. Hughes had actually used and demonstrated an earlier version of a telephone in 1865, when he borrowed a Telephon from Prof. Philipp Reis the German scientist. At the time he had been in Russia installing his telegraph system when he was requested to give a lecture to the Czar and notables on the telegraph and other electrical devices. He included Reis s telephone in the presentation. The Reis telephone had actually been the starting point for many of the early telephone experimenters such as Bell and Edison. Hughes made some experiments trying to improve on Reis s approach but they were unsuccessful. He next started his enquiry by pondering if there was a material or substance that could convert sound directly into electricity. This line of reasoning was based on the fact that it had been discovered that selenium altered its electrical characteristics when exposed to light. William Thomson had also shown that placing a wire under strain resulted in a change to its resistance. Hughes decided to pursue this approach. He set up a stretched wire to see if he could get it to vibrate when exposed to sound waves, believing that if it did then the strains experienced by the wire would change its resistance which in turn could be detected. His circuit consisted of a battery, the stretched wire and the telephone receiver, all connected in series. Fortunately, the experiment failed, but it was a failure that set him on a path of discovery. Hughes was a great experimentalist and seemed to be able to sniff out which way to proceed. In the failed experiment, which resulted in the wire being so extended that it broke, he noticed at the point of failure that he could hear in the telephone receiver a rushing sound and then a final crackle. Too many a broken wire or loose connection would be an annoyance but he was Some of Hughes microphones intrigued by the sounds he heard when the wire broke, it was something to be investigated. He tried holding the wires together and found that noises could be heard, he then laid the wires down on the table one on top of the other slightly weighted to hold them together and was surprised that he could hear sound. He embellished this experiment by laying three nails down to form a letter H and connected them into his circuit. Now he could hear even better but not with much fidelity. He had discovered the loose contact effect as a means of detecting sound. His basic apparatus relied on being able to modulate a current by the loose or poor contact. It was a device whose resistance changed in accordance with the sound waves, just what he had been looking for. He went on to try many different arrangements and materials in a quest to improve the quality of the sounds he could hear. Some of these were glass tubes filled with metal filings, with charcoal pieces or charcoal powder as well as charcoal that had been impregnated with mercury. He tried many types of material contacts and found that metals that oxidized became unusable. Materials that didn t oxidize were platinum and carbon and he chose the more economical of the two. As he refined his devices he found the most successful were based on a carbon pencil loosely supported between two carbon supports mounted on a piece of wood or sounding board. These he connected in series with a battery and the Bell receiver. He named it a microphone - a magnifier of sound (in keeping with the microscope that magnified light). It was a true microphone in that it had many more applica- 5 6 De Jongh microphone external view tions other than just as a telephone transmitter. He declined to patent the microphone declaring that he was giving the technology away free to be used by anyone. His experiments were published by the technical societies and in many of the technical journals. The floodgates soon opened and within months, others were repeating his experiments and working on their own versions. Variations of the carbon pencil microphone were extensively used in conjunction with an electromagnetic receiver in Europe for many years by several companies. As an example I am showing here a Belgian model developed by a certain Mr. De Jongh. (See also the article on the Gower Instrument on P24) A later variation, based on Hughes s demonstration of the use of particles in loose surface contact, resulted in the carbon granule microphone of Henry Hunnings. In America this technology was further developed by A. White into what became known as the solid back transmitter and in the UK as the Post Office insert number 13 microphone. The carbon granule transmitter was not superseded by any other technologies for use in telephones until the 1980s (and in some parts of the world they may still be in use?). Hughes s theory as to how the microphone worked was that it was a surface effect due to the number of points in contact that varied in sympathy with the sound waves. Hughes was said to be always full of interesting experiences and of a light heartedness that made him excellent company. However at times he become a catalyst (or as some viewed it a lightning rod) for stimulating great debates within the scientific community, either on the theory of electrical phenomena or on his experimental results. One of these instances came about with his discovery of the carbon microphone when he crossed swords with Thomas Edison. Edison believed he had invented the carbon microphone first and suspected one of the English government officials (William Preece), whom he had confided in, of leaking his secrets to Hughes. Hughes s decision to give away his invention freely to the world only further infuriated Edison, who intended to capitalize on this invention. Unfortunately, the Wizard of Menlo Park, as Edison was known, had misunderstood the circumstances, and before checking and discussing with Hughes, or others that he was accusing, immediately took the dispute public in the newspapers. Therefore, an affair that could have been settled amiably became a nasty war of De Jongh microphone opened to show the carbon pencils Thomas Edison [Library of Congress] words and accusations and counter accusations dragged out in the major technical journals and newspapers. The dispute drew in the who s who of the scientific world, who waded in with their opinions and in support of their respective champion. The dispute eventually became nationalistic pitting the much larger scientific community of Europe against the smaller one of America. In the end, it was concluded that each had carried out their research independently and there had been no leaks. Hughes, having discovered the microphone a device that had wide applications and Edison having concentrated specifically on the telephone transmitter. The chief scientist of the day in Britain, Sir William Thomson (Lord Kelvin) scolded Edison in the press over the affair and requested an apology from him for his unfounded accusations - Edison never did reply. Let me add here that the word microphone was coined by Charles Wheatstone in 1827 for a mechanical sound amplifier. His later life Hughes was elected a Fellow of the prestigious Royal Society in 1880, and continued his research and experimentation. It was during this period in the 1880s that it seems Hughes finally managed to find time in 1882 to marry his longtime friend from Paris, Anna Chadbourne. She was an accomplished artist, a resident of Paris, and also an American citizen. In 1886 he was elected 6 7 President of the Society of Telegraph Engineers (later to become the Institution of Electrical Engineers and now the Institution of Engineering and Technology, or IET). He continued to be recognized for his scientific contributions and in 1885 was awarded the Royal Medal from the Royal Society. He was also active with the Royal Institution, becoming their Vice President in The Royal Institution had had such prestigious past president as Sir Humphry Davy and his protégé Michael Faraday. Hughes realized as time went on that his breakthrough invention period was probably over. He still continued to receive money from the success of his telegraph systems and he had judiciously invested it, which provided him with a sound financial base. He and his wife, while enjoying a comfortable lifestyle, were not extravagant, and they elected to live in an apartment on Great Portland Street and later round the corner in Langham Street. They enjoyed an extended tour of Europe each summer. He started to use his energies in other directions, such as helping younger prospective engineers and scientists on their way. He was keen on seeing them get ahead with an education, especially if they showed initiative in helping themselves. To be in a better position to promote and influence them, he became associated with the London Polytechnic School of Engineering and became their President. He took the job seriously and often stayed up late at night writing letters of encouragement and advice to students, giving them hints and opinions on their inventions or experiments. He continued to be recognized for his work and was awarded the Albert Medal in 1897, a medal that Faraday, William Thomson (Lord Kelvin), Louis Pasteur and Sir Joseph Lister had previously received. As the century came to a close his health started to deteriorate and he barely saw the New Year in, as he died on January 22nd, 1900 and was laid to rest in Highgate cemetery. Always generous in life he was also generous after his death. After providing for his wife and relatives he left a substantial amount of his wealth to the London hospitals in the form of The David Edward Hughes Hospital Fund. To the professional organizations he left sums of money to establish medals to be awarded annually in recognition of original scientific research. The Hughes medal continues to be awarded annually at the Royal Society and has been presented to such notables as Stephen Hawking in 1976 and Alexander Graham Bell in 1913, as well as: Max Born, Robert Watson Watt (Radar), H. Geiger, Neils Bohr, Edward Appleton, Ambrose Fleming and Augusto Righi. Epilogue To me it is very remarkable that there are really many similarities between the life of professor David E. Hughes and that of Lars M. Ericsson (see my articles on Ericsson in THJ nos 105 and 106 Winter and Spring 2019). ============================================================================================== https://atlantic-cable.com/Article/1858Leslies/index.htm Frank Leslie's Illustrated Newspaper 1858 Cable News June 5, 1858 Foreign News: England: The Africa brings news from the Old World to the 15th. Professor Hughes' experiments have been eminently successful in transmitting the electric spark through the whole extent of the cable. On the 13th Cyrus W. Field called upon the First Lord of the Admiralty, and asked for a steamer in lieu of the United States steamer Susquehanna, which was unable to attend the Niagara, owing to the yellow fever breaking out in her. It was immediately granted. =========================================================================================== https://atlantic-cable.com/Books/1861JCR/index.htm (Hughes, David Edward.) Atlantic cable injured by using induction coils, 2014-2016; Daniell’s battery would increase the injury from induction coils, 2017-2020; insulation of cable at Keyham generally bad, 2068; defects owing to exposure to heat, to the numerous joints, and the use of induction coils, 2070; opinion very favourable to the successful laying of a new cable, 2071. ... (Hughes, David E.) Increase of size of conductor does not increase largely the inductive effect, 1978; retardation not due so much to induction as to charge and discharge, 1937-1989; charge in proportion to the resistance of the wire, 2001; time required to charge a cable to its maximum, 2001-2003. ... (Hughes, David Edward.) Experiments to increase the speed, 1973; large conductor superior as regards speed, 1976-1978; results of speed obtained through different lengths of cables, 1977, 2004-2111; increase of conductor does not increase largely the inductive effect, 1978; speed obtained by induction coils and Daniell’s battery same as stated by Mr. Whitehouse, 1980; retardation not due so much to induction as to charge and discharge, 1987-1989; speed independent of battery power used under certain circumstances, 1991-1993; believes the current to be instantaneous, 1994-1995; charge of cable in proportions to the resistance of the wire, 2001; time required to charge a cable to its maximum, 2001-2003; speed with the battery the same as with the inductive coil, 2012; records made by Hughes’ patent printing instrument, 2021-2025; comparisons of records made with Morse’s system, 2025-2026. ... (Whitehouse, Wildman.) Uniformity under like conditions, 1725; voltaic current difficult to use and slower than the magneto electric, 1726-1730; experiments upon magneto-electric currents, 1731-1739; magneto currents 2˝ times as rapid as voltaic, 1740; no perceptible alteration in speed by increasing cells of battery, 1741, 1742; result of using a large number of cells, 1743-1746; induction coil current, 1747-1751; experiments with Magnetic Company’s gutta-percha subterranean wires, 1752-1773; experiments between Dublin and London, 1774-1777; speed of reversals, 1778; difference of speed between transmission of reversals at equal periods and of signals requiring unequal times, 1779, 1750; experiments corroborated by subsequent ones upon the Atlantic cable, 1781; speed of reversals in the Atlantic cable, 1782-1800; speed with Daniell’s battery, 1801-1811; difference of speed at Keyham by inductive coils and Daniell’s battery, 1812-1814; experiments with the Magnetic Company’s wires proved that an Atlantic cable could be worked, 1815, 1816; responsibility for the electrical conditions of the Atlantic cable, 1819; size of conductor for overcoming retardation; 1820-1821, 1831-1835; experiments on the effect of surface induction, 1822-1830; difference between an induction coil and a battery with respect to tension, 1921-1927; effect of the heating power of Daniell’s battery on gutta-percha, 1930; speed obtained by Daniell’s, 1931-1938 (Newall, R.S.) Speed of working the Varna and Balaklava line, 4486, 4487. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- https://atlantic-cable.com/Books/1861JCR/Whitehouse/index.htm Escher.gif (426 bytes) History of the Atlantic Cable & Undersea Communications from the first submarine cable of 1850 to the worldwide fiber optic network Report of the Joint Committee Appointed by the Lords of the Committee of the Privy Council for Trade and the Atlantic Telegraph Company to Inquire into the Construction of Submarine Telegraph Cables together with the Minutes of Evidence and Appendix. (1861) Evidence of Wildman Whitehouse, 15 December 1859 Introduction:Edward O.W. Whitehouse, “Wildman Whitehouse” as he normally signed himself, a surgeon by profession, was appointed chief electrician to the Atlantic Telegraph Company and was responsible for the equipment which would transmit signals through the 1858 cable. While there were other factors, it is generally accepted that Whitehouse’s insistence on using high-voltage induction coils was ultimately responsible for the failure of the cable, although Whitehouse argues to the contrary in his evidence before the Joint Committee, presented here, and more strongly in his pamphlet published the year before. --Bill Burns Thursday, 15th December 1859. PRESENT Captain DOUGLAS GALTON | Mr. SAWARD. Professor WHEATSTONE | Mr. VARLEY. CAPTAIN DOUGLAS GALTON IN THE CHAIR. WILDMAN WHITEHOUSE, Esq., examined. 1713. (Chairman.) What is your profession?—I am a member of the College of Surgeons, but not now practising; lately I have devoted myself to electro-telegraphy and that must be called my profession. 1714. I believe you have given great attention to electrical questions, and especially to deep-sea telegraphy for some years?—Yes, I have. ... ------------------------------- https://atlantic-cable.com/Books/Whitehouse/index.htm Reply to the Statement of the Directors of the Atlantic Telegraph Company... by Edward Orange Wildman Whitehouse Introduction: Edward O.W. Whitehouse, “Wildman Whitehouse” as he generally styled himself, was a surgeon by profession and an electrical experimenter by avocation. In 1856 he was appointed Electrician to the Atlantic Telegraph Company and was responsible for the testing of the 1857/58 cables, and for the design and operation of the equipment which would transmit the telegraph signals between Ireland and Newfoundland. While there were other factors, it is generally accepted that Whitehouse’s insistence on using high voltage induction coils was ultimately responsible for the failure of the cable. The Board of Directors of the Company fired Whitehouse and issued a statement censuring him, to which he replied publicly with the text below. This was initially printed in the British newspapers Daily News and The Times, and was published by Whitehouse as a pamphlet soon after. Whitehouse's letter elicited a rejoinder from John W. Brett, which was published in the Daily News and the Morning Chronicle on 23 September 1858. Silvanus P. Thompson's two-volume biography of William Thomson, published in 1910, provides a detailed record of Thomson's part in the cable enterprise, offers insights into Whitehouse's competence and behaviour during the preparation and laying of the Atlantic cable, and puts into perspective Whitehouse's statements below. A full extract of that section of the biography may be read on the page The Life of William Thomson: The Atlantic Telegraph Failure. Wildman Whitehouse's evidence before the Joint Committee which investigated the cable failure offers further insights. The text of Whitehouse's pamphlet reproduced on this page is taken from Bern Dibner's copy, now at the Dibner Library of the History of Science and Technology, Smithsonian Institution Libraries. I am grateful to Kirsten van der Veen of the Dibner Library for her help in providing a copy of this document. --Bill Burns REPLY TO THE STATEMENT OF THE DIRECTORS OF THE ATLANTIC TELEGRAPH COMPANY, PUBLISHED IN THE “DAILY NEWS,” OF SEPTEMBER 20, AND “TIMES,” SEPTEMBER 22, 1858. BY EDWARD ORANGE WILDMAN WHITEHOUSE ELECTRICIAN-PROJECTOR OF THE ATLANTIC TELEGRAPH LONDON: PRINTED BY BRADBURY & EVANS, WHITEFRIARS. 1858. Unconscious of the blow which has been secretly endeavoured to be struck against my character and conduct—engaged in peaceful and philosophical pursuits—unwilling to enter the arena of hostile controversy, and desirous only to deprecate an obloquy undeserved; urged by a just respect for the public of two worlds, who are interested in the success of the mightiest of undertakings, and discomfited by its failure: I come forward openly and boldly to answer all the accusations that have been untruly and unjustly brought against me, and to declare, that if Science—as has often been the case—must have its victims, I will not fall the butt of unrefuted slander and detraction. I had long been aware that sinister and unseen influences were at work. There is a feeling in the mind of every man, which tells him of forthcoming evil; yet here, at least, in this enterprise, it might have been hoped that unity and sincerity would have gone hand in hand, and that pretended friends should not have been so suddenly perverted into foes. The charges levelled against my ignorant unsuspicion are three: three of the most derogatory and detrimental, not merely to the fame of a public, but to the character of a private man. In the one case, however, error is but human; in the other, disgrace. The charges are—I do not blink them; I feel them in their full force—incompetency for the task I had undertaken and the position I filled; duplicity in reporting one thing to the Directors, and yet acting in virtual contradiction to my report; and disobedience to orders of my masters—travelling heedlessly out of my province to disobey and defy them. These charges I retort upon themselves. The incompetency was theirs—the duplicity was theirs; and though they could not disobey their own commands, yet there are cases (and mine I believe to have been one) in which disobedience is not merely a duty, but a virtue. A simple narrative of facts, and a mere reference to telegrams and letters that have passed between us in the position of now opposing parties, will show at once the accuracy of my statements, and the justice of my complaint. The manifesto put forth by the Directors of the Atlantic Telegraph Company, and professing to meet my desired appeal to the Shareholders for a decision, evades the real question at issue, so far as it regarded their own conduct, introducing instead much that is irrelevant and personal. The Directors shrink from the investigation challenged, “into all the circumstances which have occurred since the laying of the cable, and upon which the Directors have thought right to found my summary dismissal,” namely, as assigned by themselves (in their resolution of August 17, 1858), “the underrunning of the cable without the authority of the board; and my refusal to admit Mr. France to the instrument-room, at Valentia.” In both which circumstances the conduct of the Directors will be found to have justified my acts,—while they are unable to disprove the truth of a single assertion contained in my letter of the 6th, to which their secretary ventured to give at that-time so unqualified and unwarrantable a denial. Meantime, the neglect of their duty by the Directors has become a fact, patent and incontrovertible, and of which they stand self-convicted, by having on the previous occasion thought it necessary to assemble at Valentia in considerable numbers, anxiously awaiting the arrival of the ships till the receipt of the unwelcome tidings of their failure; while on the recent occasion more than fourteen days were allowed to elapse from the successful landing of the cable, before the arrival of any of the executive body at the seat of operations. The engineer had left without waiting to complete the engineering operations, and the Directors vouchsafed no reply to my urgent appeal, by telegraph, on the fourth day, for the necessary protection of the cable by the heavy shore-end, which remains to this hour a duty unfulfilled. My words were, “absolutely essential something immediately done to protect end of light cable in harbour.” In the midst of the difficulties and anxieties of the position, spending almost every hour, day and night, in the instrument room,—left, as I was, from this time, without support or advice, without assistance of the engineer, or the presence of a single Director for counsel and aid,—I assert that it was the absence and palpable neglect of the executive body which led, nay compelled me, in the exercise of my judgment, to take the very steps of which they subsequently complain. I will now follow the Directors categorically, but as briefly as possible, through their statement. And first as to the money part of the question, which though the meanest, and unmentioned by me, has been so ostentatiously foisted before the eyes of the public. The amount of bonus in shares which the Directors thought worth while to Offer for my services is thrust prominently, and not very delicately, into notice. Will it be credited, that I have not to this day been able to obtain possession of a single share? At the strong instance of the Secretary, and to avoid inconvenience to some of the Directors, I signed a necessary deed acknowledging their receipt months ago, just before the sailing of the first expedition in this year. I trusted to him as a friend, a gentleman, and a man of honour, that they would be forthcoming at the right time; in this I have been, as perhaps I deserved to be, disappointed. I have since applied formally on more than one occasion for the delivery of these shares (ready months since, wanting only the ... -----------------------------------------------