Talk:Joseph Beverley Fenby
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
No sources[edit]
This article has no referenced sources. A Google search on "F B Fenby" shows only links to Wikipedia or mirror sites. --Blainster 00:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- Located the reference here. And according to this MS Word doc, author Read was the founder of Popular Electronics (or first editor), and Welch was the curator of the Syracuse University audio archives. --Blainster 01:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
This article has it all wrong, no one named Fenby has ever been Mayor of Worcester, Massachusetts.[1] It was not FB Fenby who invented the Electro-Magnetic Phonograph, it was Joseph Beverley Fenby, and he was not from Worcester, Massachusetts, he was from Worcester in England, some how the J as in Joseph has turned into a F, and Worcester in the UK, has become Worcester, Massachusetts. see [2]
"No evidence exists that anybody named JB Fenby lived in Massachusetts at that time. The US Patent Office did not issue a patent to anybody named Fenby in 1863. Or 1862. Or 1864. No patent was given for an electro magnetic phonograph"[1]
In 1863 the electro-magnetic phonoscope"A musical Machine, for registering music instantaneously as played" was invented by Mr. J. Beverly Fenby of Bute Villa, St Johns, Worcester, England. [2]
The 1863 "electro-magnetic phonograph patent of FB Fenby is a piano-score - recording device issued to Joseph Beverley Fenby of Worcester, England on January 13, 1863 (Brit. pat. 101)" - [3]
Notes[edit]
- ^ High fidelity: Volume 27, Issue 1 (1977), Audiocom
{{citation}}: Missing or empty|title=(help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link) - ^ Godwin, George (July 18, 1863), The Builder, Volume 21, Covent Garden, London: The Builder, p. 522
- ^ Koenigsberg, Allen (1990), The patent history of the phonograph, 1877-1912: A source book containing 2,118 U.S. sound recording patents & 1,013 inventors arranged numerically, chronologically, and alphabetically : illustrated by 101 original patent drawings with detailed commentaries on each : additional historical essays on the U.S. patent system, APM Press, p. 25
Google Books link for contemporary source[edit]
The Builder, v 21, p 522, July 18, 1863, published in the land of pounds, shillings and pence, does indeed say "J.B.", not "F.B.", and "phonoscope", not "phonograph". Better not bet any brass farthings that the alleged invention actually worked as claimed. Automatic transcription of keyboard-playing into ordinary written music notation was a ruinously hard nut inventors were still trying to crack a century later. AVarchaeologist (talk) 00:44, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
P.S. Am I alone in feeling that my leg is being pulled hard by that final sentence about this acclaimed scientist's ironic death? It and the sentence before it really ought to go into the bin unless someone can supply a source for them. The very weasely "it is often seen..." might well be changed to the more reasonable and somewhat less weasely "It might be seen...". AVarchaeologist (talk) 02:16, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Preparation for merging "J. B. Fenby" and "Joseph Beverley Fenby" articles[edit]
Since the article "F. B. Fenby" was (correctly) moved to "J. B. Fenby" (on 13:27, 15 June 2016 by @Qwfp), there are now 2 duplicate articles: "J. B. Fenby" and "Joseph Beverley Fenby".
I propose to merge the two into "Joseph Beverley Fenby". This latter is chosen, because he generally signed himself with both names and this is how he was referred to in contemporaneous references.
In preparation for this, I have copied across talk from the "J. B. Fenby" article into (this) "Joseph Beverly Fenby" article.
--ElectricFeet (talk) 18:52, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Removal of patent information on "phonoscope/phongraph"[edit]
Re my removal of " ... was granted a patent on 13 January 1863 (Brit. pat. 101) ... ". There is no reference to a patent for a "phonograph" by Fenby in patent databases. There is a "phonoscope" patent (I will add more to the article on that later), but the statement on phonograph is incorrect.
--ElectricFeet (talk) 16:03, 18 August 2017 (UTC)