<P>I tried to go to the link in your signature (http://tvontheporch.com) and it appears to be broken. Would you be so kind as to post a corrected link? In the next 30 days while you still care? Thanks!<P>Scott<BR><P>------------------<BR>

I just visited the Aaron Sorkin Yahoo group, and their banner headline says THE FARNSWORTH INVENTION movie will start production next fall. If they hurry and there are not a lot of special effects, it could be ready by late winter or early spring. I can't see them releasing it during a holiday season action movie frenzy.<BR><P>------------------<BR>

Hey, the debate is great! But here's my 2 cents: Very often, you have the true scientist and/or inventor, typically the guy who GIVES away his ideas, and comes up with new ideas for the love of ideas. He's much too involved in the research and the joy of inventing to worry about money or even credit. Then you have the Edison type, who is more a capitalist entrepreneur than a true inventor--that is the idea he starts with is, what can I get a patent on and make a lot of money? The more modern example: a lot of really smart people invented computer programs, for the fun of it and SHARED them with each other, until a money-grubber like Bill Gates came along and figured out, hey I can be a Gazillionaire by SELLING this stuff. Of course, it then becomes all about who can get to the patent office first, or who can afford the best patent attorney. We may never even know the names of many people who labored in their garages or basement workshops just for the fun of it coming up with fantastic ideas that were later patented by people whose names are now household words.<BR>How do I know this? In 1957 or 1958, as a kid of twelve or gthirteen, I took a five tube portable radio chassis, which had a broken case, and built a huge wooden case for it and put twin 6"X9" auto speakers in it because I loved awesome bass. Well, of course if I still had it, and you saw it, you'd instantly recognize it as what is now called a "BOOM BOX". I never thought much of it until twenty or thirty years later when these things started appearing all over the place. Did I tell you about the Japanese guy who lived next door, who later went to work for sony....<P>------------------<BR>OZ

> Very often, you have the true scientist and/or inventor, typically the guy who GIVES away his ideas, and comes up with new ideas for the love of ideas. He's much too involved in the research and the joy of inventing to worry about money or even credit. Then you have the Edison type, who is more a capitalist entrepreneur than a true inventor--that is the idea he starts with is, what can I get a patent on and make a lot of money? >><P>In this case, we have both types on both sides.<P>I've read the biographies of Farnsworth, Zworykin, and Sarnoff. Both Farnsworth and Zworykin were true scientist/inventors full of the love of ideas. Farnsworth gave his away to his backers, and his lawyers fought like pit bulls for the money grubbing capitalists who backed him. Zworykin gave his ideas to RCA, which also fought mightily for them, although Sarnoff, unlike Gates, did not accumulate vast wealth. Some interference suits initiated by Farnsworth he actually LOST against Westinghouse or RCA (Abramson page 64), but that's another story.<P>I wonder, will the movie include the cases Farnsworth initiated against the Goliath corporations in which he lost? Doubtful.<BR><P>------------------<BR>

Hi,<BR> I'm breathing a sigh of relief this topic has ended. These inventors have caused the people of this country to become obeast including the children They don't go out and play anymore or do things such as shovel snow, take garbage out, cut lawn, rake yard,do dishes, pick up their toys, paper routes,baseball in the pasture,build things from scrap wood etc. Instead of studying school work on the school bus they have video games to play. Many eat meals in front of the TV,on and on I could go. What monster have these inventors created? Please these guys aren't heros to most families.<BR> Ken<BR> Ken<P>------------------<BR>

Hi,<BR> Get registered.<P>------------------<BR>

<P>Turns out I registered a while back under this handle. I'll try to remember use it if I ever post again. --PS<P><P>------------------<BR>Paul W Schatzkin<BR>aka "The Perfesser" <BR>

driver,<BR> No offence Paul, just thought if you are posting this often why not register.<BR>Ken<P>------------------<BR>

Is this the longest post ever???<P>------------------<BR>OZ

Paul: "There was no Iconoscope in 1923."<P>Irrelevant, because Zworykin had a working electronic television camera tube in 1925, two years before Farnsworth did.<P>Paul: "[Scott acknowledged the] Image Orthicon tube bears a remarkable resemblance to the Image Dissector"<P>I didn't say "remarkable." I never deny that a few Farnsworth inventions were useful for television. My position is that Farnsworth is erroneously claimed as the "lone inventor" of television.<P>Paul: "[Scott] prefers to dismiss the Image Dissector as "dead end" despite it's incorporation into the device that really launched the industry in the 1940s and 50s"<P>Regular commercial TV broadcasting began in America and England without the use of Farnsworth's "electric image," the centerpiece of Farnsworth's suit against RCA. I stand by my assessment that the essence of the dissector -- scanning an electrical image over a tiny hole -- was a technological dead end because it had the same fundamental flaw as mechanical scanners (wasted light).<P>Paul: "Don't forget to hold up the other patent in your other hand, the one that shows the electronic receiver. The patent office split the original application into three parts, thus treating the camera and receiver separately."<P>Supply the patent number please? The 1927 Farnsworth patents I've seen show only an electromechanical receiver (Patents 1,773,980 - 1,806,935 - 1,806,935 - 1,773,981). It's curious that there is claim to inventing electronic television in 1927, yet no patent for such can be found.<P>Paul: "I'll be back when the movie comes out."<P>A hit and run? How inconsiderate!<BR><P>------------------<BR>

Paul just wrote to me with the 1927 patent number he claims is for an electronic receiver (1,773,981). The patent contains the following phrasing, which reads to me like an attempt at deception:<P>"This is accomplished without mechanically moving parts, excepting the vibrating strips of the oscillographs. The apparatus is thus free from mechanical problems."<P>So why didn't Baird say "my televisor works completely electronically, without moving parts, except for the rotating disks on the transmitter and receiver. The apparatus is thus free from mechanical problems."<P>While I'm at it, why don't I declare my car to be free of mechanical problems because it's all electronic except for the engine, transmission, differential...<P><BR><P>------------------<BR>

This is unbelievable! This patent is for a mechanical light-based receiver!!!! This is not an electronic receiver by any stretch of the imagination. From what I can see, he's REDUCED the mechanical content, but not eliminated it. (Although it could be argued that he's increased it, as it has two mechanical components (the oscillographs) instead of one (the scanning disc)). He talks about 'light refraction, polarisers, light rotators' etc.<P>This puts Farnsworth firmly in the same camp as Baird, Jenkins, Ives etc, irrespective of what Paul Schatzkin says. It also shows once again the importance of the early pioneers, and makes it painfully obvious that any attempt to pull Farnsworth from this collective and somehow make him superior is disingenuous. <P>Words fail me!!!<P>Jason.<P><BR>------------------<BR>

O.K. But nobody answered my questions:<BR>1) When do we get to see the movie? and<BR>2) Is this the longest post ever on the forum?<P>------------------<BR>OZ

<P>1) The movie isn't even cast. Shooting is supposed to start in the Fall. If it does, we may see the film in early 2006. In Hollywood, anything can happen.<P>2) Is there an archive so we can find other frontrunners for longest thread? You've got the job of finding out, OZ132HOME.<P>In other words:<P>1) Nobody knows.<BR>2) Nobody knows.<P>Now let's get back to arguing. The ball's back in the Farnsworth court. They seem to be in stunned silence from my latest spike.<BR><P>------------------<BR>

Scott,<BR> Private email seems to be the way to go since it's just you two basically. Four pages and no further along now then when it began.<BR>Ken<P>------------------<BR>

<P>This has been a very good discussion and I would hate to see many of us deprived of the morsels of information herein contained if this was to go to private e-mail. Gentlemen, carry on!<P>Dave<P><P>------------------<BR>Intelligence is the ability to use your knowledge

<P>Randy is group moderator, Ken. Not you.<P>Why would you want to shut down a topic? Can't you just ignore it? Even if only two people are interested (and obviously more than two are) why don't you just ignore it instead of policing them? I don't ask rhetorically. I'd really like an answer.<P>Scott<P><P>------------------<BR>