I don't know if it's down to poor understanding or interpretation on my part, or bad wording on the part of those that created the plaque, but I'm having some difficulty in understanding the rationale for claiming that on 11 December 1921, the first transatlantic radio signals were received near Abbotsford Nursing Home, Ardrossan.
Here's a photo of the plaque commemorating the event, commemorated on a plaque installed with the blessing of the RSGB (Radio Society of Great Britain) who one would expect to 'know best'
NEAR THIS SITE IN DECEMBER 1921, RADIO SIGNALS TRANSMITTED BY RADIO AMATEURS WERE FIRST HEARD ACROSS THE ATLANTIC. AMERICAN ENGINEER PAUL F GODLEY SELECTED ARDROSSAN AS A QUIET SPOT FOR RADIO RECEPTION, AND SPENT SEVERAL LONG WINTER NIGHTS IN A TENT WITH HIS RECEIVING APPARATUS. HE WAS REWARDED WITH CONFIRMED RECEPTION OF MORE THAN 30 DIFFERENT AMATEUR RADIO STATIONS IN CANADA AND THE UNITED STATES, THUS PROVING THAT VAST DISTANCES COULD BE SPANNED BY RADIO WITHOUT MASSIVE COMMERCIAL INSTALLATIONS. ERECTED IN DECEMBER 1989 BY THE RADIO SOCIETY OF GREAT BRITAIN TO COMMEMORATE THE 75TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE FOUNDING OF THE AMERICAN RADIO RELAY LEAGUE, SPONSOR OF GODLEY'S EXPEDITION.
I have no problem with the occurrence of some sort of 'Radio First' at Ardrossan, and would be happy if there was, but unless I'm being blinded by being too technically aware and am missing something blindingly obvious, this 'First' was pre-empted by the work of Fessenden at Machrihanish, who was making transatlantic communication by radio some 15 years earlier, in 1906.
I think the key phrase is," WITHOUT MASSIVE COMMERCIAL INSTALLATIONS "!
If Paul F Godley was operating in a tent it stammds to reason his radio equipment was quite compact and low powered enough to run off of batteries. His Antenna must have been quite small too.
On a separate tack, why do americans always quote their middle initial? Many US ships are similarly named.
His antenna was quite big, there are accounts with more detail floating around, it would have to be if his equipment was puny. I think it was a loop too, but it would still have had to be e decent size, if only because of the frequencies involved.
I suppose you're right about the key phrase, but it is extremely poorly worded, even the 'professionals' were 'amateurs' back then ie the 1900s, scrambling for funding to develop kit that didn't even exist. By the 1920s, if you rubbed shoulders with the right people, it would have been relatively easy to repeat what had been done before, so I kind of grudge acknowledging this as a 'First', as opposed to a 'Repeat' at less cost.
I know when I was in the RSGB for a while, I decided to get out as the fee was a waste of money, as the membership always seemed to be grousing about decisions made by those in power, so maybe this is an example.
Maybe the Americans lacked a pool of names, and the imagination and history to come up with new names, and never knew who they were talking about? Slapping in the initial increases the range, in the same vein as all Jr names that turn up for junior, and the desire to identify generations by tacking I, II, III, and so on on to the end of the same name used by a family
I've just found the "Secret Scotland" site and forum, and very interesting too.
Regarding the Ardrossan "Radio First", the significance is the use of "Short Wave", which at the time was being neglected by the professionals as being of no practical use for long distance communication.
I know when I was in the RSGB for a while, I decided to get out as the fee was a waste of money, as the membership always seemed to be grousing about decisions made by those in power, so maybe this is an example.
I left because it should still be called "The London Wireless Society" IMHO.
Home
Calendar
Search
Register
Login
Transatlantic Radio Firsts
Print Thread
Report to Moderator
Logged
Private message
